Oral
Answers to
Questions

WALES

The Secretary of State was asked—

Economy

Julian Sturdy: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of steps taken to rebalance the economy in Wales.

Alun Cairns: As the economy continues to grow, this one nation Government are ambitious for every part of the UK. In Wales, we are regenerating the south-east with a city deal for the Cardiff capital region. We intend to follow suit with a deal for Swansea in the west, and we have opened the door to a growth deal for north Wales.

Julian Sturdy: May I be the first to welcome the Secretary of State and the Minister to their new roles?
Following the announcement of the north Wales growth deal in the Budget, what plans are there for the deal to be genuinely cross-border and to plug into the northern powerhouse, which has the potential to deliver huge benefits throughout the north, not only for the distinct regions like north Wales but for God’s own county of Yorkshire?

Alun Cairns: As well as seeking to grow the economy across the United Kingdom, all the way to Yorkshire and beyond, we are seeking to move our dependency in Wales from the south-eastern part of the country. Less than two weeks ago, I was in north Wales talking to local authority leaders, businesses and business groups, all of whom were keen to support the north Wales growth deal. It was interesting to note that they called for the deal to take place on a cross-border basis, extending to Cheshire and the Wirral, to ensure that north Wales was plugged into the northern powerhouse.

David Hanson: Given the importance of north Wales, will the Secretary of State press very hard for the establishment of links to Manchester airport and rail links to enable people to benefit from HS2, and would I, as a north Wales MP, be able to vote on such measures?

Alun Cairns: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, the new cross-border taskforce is making a bid for control period 6 funding from the Department for Transport with the aim of improving links with north Wales. Franchise negotiations are taking place between the Welsh and United Kingdom Governments, and we are determined to ensure that Members are represented properly in those negotiations.

David Jones: I, too, welcome my right hon. Friend to his position. As he said, the Budget contained excellent news for north Wales in the form of the growth deal announcement, which recognises the region’s close association with the north-west of England, but does he agree that maximising the benefit will require at least an element of political devolution to north Wales?

Alun Cairns: My right hon. Friend speaks with authority and knowledge of this issue. Devolution to north Wales from what is seen in many quarters as the remoteness of Cardiff Bay is essential. The community groups whom I met in north Wales, whether they were from the north-west, from the border or from the English side of the boundary, wanted the growth deal to work on a cross-border basis, and I am determined to explore that possibility in the interests of the region.

Jonathan Edwards: One of the most effective ways of rebalancing the economy is to empower the Welsh Government by giving them the necessary job creation levers, which is why I welcome moves to increase fiscal empowerment for Wales. If fiscal devolution is to work, however, it must be facilitated by the provision of a genuinely no-detriment fiscal framework. The SNP Scottish Government have negotiated such a framework for their country. What is the Secretary of State’s preferred deduction method for Wales?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Gentleman will be aware of the plans in the draft Wales Bill for the granting of income tax-varying powers for the Welsh Government. We want Wales to be a low-tax economy. Of course, mechanisms will need to be introduced to protect Welsh interests. The hon. Gentleman will be pleased to hear that I met the Chief Secretary to the Treasury earlier this week to discuss early proposals for such mechanisms, and we are happy to engage in further such discussions.

Philip Hollobone: Which sectors of the Welsh economy offer the most exciting prospects for growth to help to rebalance the economy, and what steps is my right hon. Friend taking to encourage them?

Alun Cairns: As my hon. Friend will know, the Budget focused on the city deal for Cardiff, which is the largest city deal in the United Kingdom, with £1.2 billion covering 10 local authority areas. However, we also have ambitions for the Swansea bay city deal and the north Wales growth deal. We need to remember that this involves UK taxpayers’ money in addition to the Barnett block, which is something that we never saw when Labour was in power.

Albert Owen: North Wales growth is interdependent on growth in the Republic of Ireland as well as in England. Will the Secretary of State—and I  welcome both him and the Under-Secretary of State to their new positions—ensure that north Wales Labour Members are provided with some details of the so-called partnership, given that we are the partners from north Wales?

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his kind words and support.
We are determined to work on that issue. There has been a bottom-up approach on the growth deal. We have met local authority leaders and businesses from north Wales, and we are determined to pursue that further. I am not sure that I can make the growth deal stretch as far as Northern Ireland and the Republic Ireland, but I would be interested to try to take it across the English border.

Severn River Crossings: Tolls

Simon Hoare: What assessment he has made of the potential effect on people in Wales of the Government’s decision to reduce tolls on the Severn river crossings.

Alun Cairns: This Government’s commitment to halve the Severn crossings toll is a major boost for the economy and people of south Wales. It will make a positive difference to commuters and small business owners and demonstrates our continued determination to rebalance the economy.

Simon Hoare: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply. I also welcome him to his place. It seems only a moment or so ago that we were competing to be the parliamentary candidate for the then safe Labour seat of Gower, which was some years ago.
Does my right hon. Friend agree that the reduction in the tolls will also hugely benefit the Welsh tourism sector by encouraging people to come to Wales, and that it is time for the Welsh Government to pull their finger out and deliver the investment and improvements to the M4 corridor?

Alun Cairns: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. It is fair to say that there are no infrastructure projects more important to the south Wales economy than the upgrade of the M4 around Newport. It is hard to believe that our noble Friend Lord Hague was Secretary of State for Wales when a commitment to that was first made, only for it to be cancelled twice by the Labour party when it was in government. Business has called for it. Commuters have called for it. Visitors have called for it. The Chancellor made money available specifically for this project almost three years ago. We just wish the Welsh Government would get on with it.

Geraint Davies: The Select Committee on Welsh Affairs found that the operational and maintenance costs of the bridge represented a quarter of the toll, yet, as the bridge goes into public hands, the Government have reduced the toll by half and are therefore creating a 100% margin. When will they reduce the toll to the level of the operational and maintenance costs to give south Wales and the Welsh economy every chance of performing as well as anywhere else, rather than having this stranglehold on it?

Alun Cairns: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman, like business groups, be it the Federation of Small Businesses, the chambers of commerce or the Institute of Directors, would welcome the halving of the tolls. We saw no action in that regard from the Labour party when it was in government. However, we have gone further than just halving the Severn tolls. A small goods vehicle, for example, will move from the current rate of £13.20 to less than £4 when the tolls are halved, because we are also removing the second-class toll.

David Davies: The announcement by this Conservative Government of the cut in tolls is hugely welcome. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that in the longer term the revenue generated from the tolls should not exceed the cost of maintaining the two Severn bridges?

Alun Cairns: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his diligent and persistent campaigning on the issue. I know that he was absolutely delighted when the Chancellor was able to respond to his and many other Conservative colleagues’ requests. Of course, a debt will remain on the tolls even when the bridges come back into public ownership in 2018 or thereabouts. That debt will still need to be serviced, as will the innovations on free-flowing traffic that we want to introduce.

Nia Griffith: I congratulate the Secretary of State and the Minister on their recent appointments. Labour Members look forward to working constructively with them, particularly on the new Wales Bill, whenever that may appear.
To clarify, in last month’s Budget the Chancellor made much of halving the tolls on the Severn crossings, but as we have since discovered that is not quite the bargain it appears to be. The 50% discount includes the 20% of VAT, which disappears anyway when the bridge reverts to public ownership, and of course businesses reclaim VAT. So instead of leaving businesses still paying thousands of pounds a year, why will not the Government do the right thing and scrap these tolls altogether?

Alun Cairns: We have an election coming and the call from the Labour party is now very different—it is very convenient. It has long called for the devolution of the tolls, but we were fearful that, as soon as the tolls were devolved, they would be used as a cash cow to support the income of the Welsh Government.

Employment Trends

Mark Pawsey: What recent assessment he has made of employment trends in Wales.

Guto Bebb: The labour market in Wales has never been stronger. Although we recognise the challenges facing the Welsh economy, there is a lot to celebrate. Unemployment has fallen to its lowest since 2008 and the number of people in work in Wales is at an all-time high.

Mark Pawsey: I welcome the Minister to his position. He is quite rightly focusing on the issues affecting steel production at Port Talbot, but what assessment has he made of the decision by Aston Martin to build its new DBX car at St Athan?

Guto Bebb: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to highlight that success story. It is a success story for all of the United Kingdom. It is an investment in St Athan, in Wales and in Britain, creating 750 highly skilled jobs in Wales and the west midlands, and I am very grateful to the Prime Minister and to Michael Fallon for the work that they have put into achieving that success.

John Bercow: I think that the hon. Gentleman was referring to the Secretary of State for Defence, the right hon. Member for Sevenoaks (Michael Fallon). Some name was mentioned, but it does not mean anything in the Chamber.

Nick Thomas-Symonds: Since 2012, Jobs Growth Wales has helped 15,000 people into meaningful employment. Given that youth unemployment is falling faster in Wales than in the UK as a whole, does the Minister agree that the UK Government could learn from the Welsh Labour Government in this regard?

Guto Bebb: It is interesting to note that an independent audit of Jobs Growth Wales has highlighted that some 80% of its spending has been inefficient. However, it is important to point out that successful jobs creation in Wales is dependent on co-operation between the two Governments, which is exactly what we saw in relation to Aston Martin.

Michael Fabricant: My hon. Friend will know that tourism is a major employer. Will he take this opportunity of paying tribute to Andrew R. T. Davies, the leader of the Conservatives in the Welsh Assembly, and to Anthony Pickles for coming up with the idea of bringing the Prince of Wales’s regalia to Wales? Will he also praise the Prince of Wales for following up on that idea? What discussions is the Minister having with the Welsh Government to promote this?

Guto Bebb: I will of course join my hon. Friend in paying tribute to the leader of the Welsh Conservatives. It is important to highlight the importance of tourism to the Welsh economy, and bringing the regalia back to Wales is the right thing to do. I am certain that the castle of Conwy in my constituency would be delighted to host them.

Jo Stevens: Does the Minister think that his colleagues’ plan to sack hundreds of civil servants in the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills in Cardiff will help or hinder employment trends in Wales?

Guto Bebb: I thank the hon. Lady for her question, but she will be aware that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on a leaked report. The key thing that we need to be aware of is that wherever in Wales we look—north, south, west or east—we are seeing employment growth. It is not my position to comment on leaked reports.

Bob Blackman: I welcome my hon. Friend to his new position and congratulate him on his new job. Does he agree that the reductions to business taxes announced in the Budget and the ability of people to keep more of their own  earnings will create an environment in which the private sector can invest and in which employment opportunities can come to Wales in the same way as they do to the rest of the country?

Guto Bebb: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. The tax cuts that have been put in place by this Government since 2010 are to be welcomed. Of particular importance in the Budget was the announcement on small business rates, and I call on the Welsh Government to follow the example of the Westminster Government to ensure that Welsh small businesses have the same advantages through their business rates as do those in England.

Ann Clwyd: Only 38% of working-age disabled people are in jobs in Wales, compared with 46% in the UK as a whole. Why?

Guto Bebb: The right hon. Lady asks an important question. There is more work to be done and, again, there is a need to work together on this issue. However, I would highlight the fact that more and more people with disabilities are now in work—152,000 more in the past 12 months and over 300,000 more in the past 24 months. We need to ensure that the successes we are seeing across the country are replicated in Wales.

Steel Industry

Tom Pursglove: What assessment he has made of risks to the future of the steel industry in Wales.

Alun Cairns: The steel industry is currently dealing with unparalleled global economic conditions and the UK is deeply concerned by the social and economic impact that they are having in south Wales. While we cannot change the status of the global steel market, our objective remains to overcome the challenges and play a positive role in achieving a sustainable future for the steel industry in Wales and across the UK.

Tom Pursglove: I thank the Minister for that answer. Does he agree that in order to secure the future not only of the Port Talbot site but of Tata sites around the UK, no option should be ruled out?

Alun Cairns: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for the way in which he has represented the interests of his constituents and of those who depend on steelmaking in his area. He recognises the way in which the plants are interlinked and he has been working closely with the Business Secretary and me to help to support a secure future. I can reassure him that no stone will be left unturned to secure a long-term future for the Corby plant as well as for every other plant across the UK.

Hywel Williams: I welcome the Secretary of State and his deputy to their new positions and assure you, Sir, that I will endeavour to give them ample opportunity to explain themselves with my questions. Why did the Secretary of State not travel to Mumbai for the Tata board meeting of 29 March?

Alun Cairns: The Government have been in close dialogue with Tata steel for many months. My right hon. Friend the Business Secretary was at Tata the  month before the Mumbai meeting and had engaged with its directors well before that. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be grateful that as a result of the Government’s actions we managed to avert the immediate closure of the plant and propose a sale.

Hywel Williams: I will give the Secretary of State another go. Did he fail to attend the meeting because a more senior Cabinet colleague told him not to do so? Did he decide not to go off his own bat? Or was it more down to the fact that, as the Minister for Small Business, Industry and Enterprise said of her boss the Business Secretary to the Select Committee on Welsh Affairs yesterday,
“He would not have gone to Australia had he known that they were going to close the ruddy works”?
What stopped our Secretary of State? Was it the Cabinet’s pecking order, was it indolence, or was it just plain ignorance?

Alun Cairns: I am disappointed with the hon. Gentleman’s approach. Steelworkers want to see Government and Opposition, and the unions and the company, work together to secure a long-term future. The Government have been in a long-term dialogue, which is demonstrated by the ongoing sales process as opposed to the plant facing the risk of immediate closure.

Byron Davies: Will my right hon. Friend assure me that he and the Wales Office will work with all relevant Government Departments to ensure the long-term future of Port Talbot, particularly for the workers who live in my constituency?

Alun Cairns: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend. He met the Business Secretary last week, and he and I have had several conversations about support for his constituents who depend on the plant, demonstrating its regional impact. The Government are determined to do everything possible to secure a long-term, viable future for the plant.

Nia Griffith: As the Secretary of State well knows, at sites across Wales, such as Shotton, Llanwern, Orb, Trostre and Port Talbot, Tata steelworkers produce a whole range of specialist products. What assurances has he obtained from Tata that it will not siphon off the production of the most profitable lines to their plants aboard? What guarantees has he received that the intellectual property will remain with the Welsh operations in order to attract a suitable buyer and safeguard thousands of Welsh jobs?

Alun Cairns: The hon. Lady makes an important point about the sale of the operations in the United Kingdom, which demonstrates the positive engagement between the UK Government and Tata Steel that has resulted in its decision to sell off all its operations, rather than simply to dispose of what some might see as the more profitable assets.

Steel Industry: Government Support

Stephen Kinnock: What steps the Government are taking to support the steel industry in Wales.

Alun Cairns: We have been in extensive discussions with Tata for months, and it is due to Government intervention that Tata has agreed to a sales process rather than an immediate closure of its operations in Wales. I spoke to the hon. Gentleman before he went to the Tata meeting in Mumbai and have spoken to him since. I am keen to stay in regular contact in order to update him as the position changes. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. These are important matters affecting the livelihoods of tens of thousands of people in Wales and across the country. Let us have some respect for that fact without Ministers wittering away— Mr Evennett—in the background. Important matters are being discussed. Be quiet, sir!

Stephen Kinnock: The Secretary of State will know that retaining the order book and customer base is critical for the Welsh steel industry. I want a short answer to a short question. Will the Secretary of State confirm whether he has had conversations with customers such as Honda, Nissan and Jaguar Land Rover to secure the integrity of the customer base? Yes or no.

Alun Cairns: My father was a welder at the Port Talbot plant for more than 30 years before he was made redundant several years ago. I am from that community and understand how important the steelworks is to the income of the area. My family has been through the good times when records have been broken and the difficult times when my father, like many others, was made redundant. The Government regularly engage with many of the companies, both suppliers and customers, that work with Tata. We are determined to do everything to support them.

Mark Tami: Yesterday, the Business Secretary said we need to work together, cross-party, on this, and the Secretary of State for Wales has just said the same. I understand that he is to visit Shotton on Monday—when was he intending to tell me?

Alun Cairns: I would have hoped that the hon. Gentleman would be grateful for, or approving of, a visit from a UK Minister to Shotton. I have been responding to the calls from the local workers, but I was in Wrexham on the day that the news broke about Shotton, and I spoke to community leaders and business leaders about the impact. I said to the community, “As soon as more information becomes available, I will return.” That is why I am returning to Shotton next Monday, and I am pleased about it.

EU Membership: Economy

Nicholas Dakin: What assessment he has made of the economic effect on Wales of UK membership of the EU.

Guto Bebb: The European Union makes a massive contribution to the Welsh economy: it is our largest trading partner; it supports thousands of jobs; and it  provides significant investments for projects all around Wales. The economic benefits of a reformed EU are far too great to risk leaving.

Nicholas Dakin: I thank the Minister for that answer. He is absolutely right; the Welsh economy depends on EU funding to a large extent. Does he agree that remaining in the EU is vital for training and employment opportunities in Wales and across the UK?

Guto Bebb: I fully endorse the comments the hon. Gentleman has made. The funding from the EU has been significant in re-skilling the Welsh workforce to a very high extent and the support given by the EU to higher education institutions is phenomenal.

Mark Williams: Small family farms remain the backbone of the west Wales rural economy, but incomes have declined by £5,000 over the past two years. Does the Minister share the concerns of the Farmers Union of Wales, the National Farmers Union and many in the rural economy that the last thing we need to countenance is withdrawal from the European Union?

Guto Bebb: I entirely endorse the hon. Gentleman’s comments. Both farming unions in Wales—the FUW and the NFU—are strongly in favour of our remaining in the reformed European Union. The extent of Welsh agricultural produce that is exported to the EU shows how important that market is; 90% of Welsh agricultural produce is exported to the EU and we should not risk that.

Susan Elan Jones: On this point, the Minister is absolutely right. The best decision for Wales is to stay in the European Union, as our favourite pamphlet says. But can he tell us why, at a time when Sir Terry Matthews, Airbus, NFU Cymru and the FUW support our membership, Andrew R. T. Davies, the person the Conservative party wants to be First Minister of Wales, wants Wales out of the EU? It is a disgrace, is it not? [Interruption.]

John Bercow: I think we got the gist of it.

Guto Bebb: The hon. Lady is absolutely right to highlight the support of Airbus, Horizon Nuclear Power and the farming unions, but I make this point to her: the Conservative party is a democratic party that believes passionately that the people who can make a decision about this issue are the people of this country. We have offered them a referendum and their votes will make a decision in 10 weeks’ time.

Disabled People: Employment

Debbie Abrahams: What assessment he has made of the effectiveness of support into employment for disabled people in Wales.

Guto Bebb: The Government believe every disabled person who wants to work should be able to work. As announced in the spending review, there will be a real-terms  spending increase on supporting disabled people into work. That will ensure that valuable talent and skill will be further recognised in the Welsh workforce. [Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. We are discussing the situation of disabled people in Wales.

Debbie Abrahams: Thank you, Mr Speaker. Disability rights organisations, the Equality and Human Rights Commission and many others have decried the lack of evidence in support of the Government cutting £1,500 a year from disabled people who have been found not fit for work. How many employers in Wales have the Government signed up as active Disability Confident employers for those disabled people who are fit for work?

Guto Bebb: It is important to point out, first, that supporting disabled people into the workplace is incredibly important, and this Government have a track record of success. Over the past 12 months, we have seen 150,000 disabled people enter the workplace; the figure is more than 300,000 over the past 24 months. I am proud of the fact that Swansea is the first disabled-friendly city in the UK, supporting disabled people into employment. On the specific numbers, I will write to the hon. Lady with the details that she requests.

Margaret Ferrier: Will the Minister concede that with more than a third of work capability assessment appeals being successful, Government policy is damaging the lives of a great many disabled people and starving them of money that they need in order to live a reasonable quality of life?

Guto Bebb: Although the work capability assessments need to be refined and are being refined, it is crucial to highlight that this Government strongly believe that people who are disabled and who want to work and are able to work have a contribution to make. The aim of this Government’s policies is to help people into employment where that is possible, and the figures show that our policies are successful.

Several hon. Members: rose—

John Bercow: Finally—patience rewarded—I call Mr Ian Lucas.

Ian Lucas: Thank you, Mr Speaker. I welcome the Minister to his post. Is he aware that the callous policy of the Conservative Government to implement personal independence payments is leading to many people being prevented from working because Motability cars are being taken away from them, which prevents them from being able to travel to work? Will he speak to the Prime Minister, who is sitting next to him, to try to talk some sense into him?

Guto Bebb: I find the hon. Gentleman’s comments slightly disappointing. When he looks at all the changes in the employment situation in his constituency, he should welcome this Government’s work on welfare reform. The welfare reform changes that we are putting in place are contributing to behavioural change, leading to more people supporting their own families and  contributing to the economy. When he looks at the statistics for the Wrexham constituency, he should welcome the changes, instead of condemning them.

PRIME MINISTER

The Prime Minister was asked—

Engagements

Wendy Morton: If he will list his official engagements for Wednesday 13 April.

David Cameron: This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others and, in addition to my duties in this House, I shall have further such meetings later today.

Wendy Morton: Last week in Aldridge-Brownhills I visited Laserform manufacturing and Potclays, who supplied clay for the Tower of London poppies. Does my right hon. Friend agree that supporting small businesses and the further increase in personal income tax allowance, which came in this month, show that, unlike Labour, the Conservative party is the party of enterprise and aspiration and believes in enabling hard-working people to keep more of the money they earn?

David Cameron: Let me join my hon. Friend in congratulating the firms that she mentions. She is right that it is predominantly small and medium-sized businesses that will be providing the jobs of the future. We want people to keep more of their own money to spend as they choose. That is why the historic move last week to an £11,000 personal allowance means that by 2018 people will be paying about £1,000 less per taxpayer and we will have taken 4 million of the lowest-paid people out of tax altogether. That is the action of a progressive Conservative Government.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am sure the whole House will join me in mourning the death today of the dramatist Arnold Wesker, one of the great playwrights of this country, one of those wonderful angry young men of the 1950s who, like so many angry young people, changed the face of our country.
Yesterday the European Commission announced new proposals on country-by-country tax reporting, so that companies must declare where they make their profits in the European Union and in blacklisted tax havens. Conservative MEPs voted against the proposal for country-by-country reporting and against the blacklisting. Can the Prime Minister now assure us that Conservative MEPs will support the new proposal?

David Cameron: First, let me join the right hon. Gentleman in mourning the loss of the famous playwright, with all the work that he did. He is right to mention that.
Let me welcome the country-by-country tax reporting proposal put forward by Commissioner Jonathan Hill, who was appointed by this Government as the United Kingdom Commissioner. That is very much based on the work that we have been doing, leading the collaboration  between countries and making sure that we share tax information. As we discussed on Monday, this has gone far faster and far further under this Government than under any previous Government.

Jeremy Corbyn: If the proposals were put forward by the British Government, why did Conservative MEPs vote against them? There seems to be a sort of disconnect there. The Panama papers exposed the scandalous situation where wealthy individuals seemed to believe that corporation tax and other taxes are optional. Indeed, as the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) informed us, they are apparently only for “low achievers”. When Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs says that the tax gap is £34 billion, why is the Prime Minister cutting HMRC staff by 20% and shutting down tax offices, losing the expertise of the people who could close that tax gap?

David Cameron: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman wants to get on to our responsibilities to pay our taxes, which I think is very important. I thought that his tax return was a metaphor for Labour policy: it was late, it was chaotic, it was inaccurate and it was uncosted. Turning to his specific questions, he is absolutely right to identify the tax gap. That is why we closed off loopholes in the last Parliament equivalent to £12 billion, and we aim to close off loopholes in this Parliament equivalent to £16 billion. HMRC is taking very strong action, backed by this Government, backed by the Chancellor and legislated for by this House. I think that I am right in saying that since 2010 we have put over £1 billion into HMRC to increase its capabilities to collect the tax that people should be paying. The difference between those on the Government Benches and the right hon. Gentleman is that we believe in setting low tax rates and encouraging people to pay them, and it is working.

Jeremy Corbyn: I am grateful to the Prime Minister for drawing attention to my own tax return, which is there to see, warts and all—the warts being my handwriting, and the all being my generous donation to HMRC. I actually paid more tax than some companies owned by people he might know quite well. He is not cutting tax abuse; he is cutting down on tax collectors. The tax collected helps to fund our NHS and all the other services. Last month, the Office for Budget Responsibility reported that HMRC does not have the necessary resources to tackle offshore tax disclosures. The Government are committed to taking £400 million out of HMRC’s budget by 2020. Will he now commit to reversing that cut so that we can collect the tax that will help to pay for the services?

David Cameron: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman’s figures, rather like his tax return, are not entirely accurate. At the summer Budget in 2015 we gave an extra £800 million to HMRC to fund additional work to tackle tax evasion and non-compliance between now and 2021. That will enable HMRC to recover a cumulative £7.2 billion in tax over the next five years. We have already brought in more than £2 billion from offshore tax evaders since 2010. The point that I will make to him is that I think we should try to bring some consensus to this issue. For years in this country, Labour and Conservative Governments had an attitude to the Crown dependencies and overseas territories that their  tax affairs were a matter for them, their compliance affairs were a matter for them and their transparency was a matter for them. This Government have changed that. We got the overseas territories and Crown dependencies round the table and we said, “You’ve got to have registers of ownership, you’ve got to collaborate with the UK Government and you’ve got to ensure that people do not hide their taxes.” And that is what is happening. So when he gets to his feet, he should welcome the fact that huge progress has been made, raising taxes, sorting out the overseas territories and Crown dependencies, closing the tax gap, getting businesses to pay more and providing international leadership on this whole issue—all things that never happened under Labour.

Jeremy Corbyn: I thank the Prime Minister for that answer. The only problem with it is that the Red Book states that HMRC spending will fall from £3.3 billion to £2.9 billion by 2020. With regard to the UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories, only two days ago the Prime Minister said that he had agreed that they will provide UK law enforcement and tax agencies with full access to information on the beneficial ownership of companies. There seems to be some confusion here, because the Chief Minister of Jersey said:
“This is in response to a need for information without delay where terrorist activities are involved”.
Obviously we welcome the Prime Minister’s commitment to fighting terrorism, but are Jersey and all the other dependencies actually going to provide beneficial ownership information or not?

David Cameron: The short answer to that is, yes they are, and that is what is such a big breakthrough. Look, I totally accept that they are not going as far as us, because we are publishing a register of beneficial ownership. That will happen in June. We will be one of the only countries in the world to do so—I think Norway and Spain are the others. What the overseas territories and Crown dependencies are doing is making sure that we have full access to registers of beneficial ownership to make sure that people are not evading or avoiding their taxes.
In the interests of giving full answers to the right hon. Gentleman’s questions, let me give him the figures for full-time equivalents in HMRC in terms of compliance. The numbers went from 25,000 in 2010 to 26,798 in 2015. It is not how much money you spend on an organisation; it is how many people you can actually have out there collecting the taxes and making sure the forms are properly filled in.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister is quite right: the number of people out there collecting taxes is important, so why has he laid off so many staff at HMRC, who therefore cannot collect those taxes?
In 2013, the Prime Minister demanded that the overseas territories rip aside the “cloak of secrecy” by creating a public register of beneficial ownership information. Will he now make it clear that the beneficial ownership register will be an absolutely public document and transparent, for all to see who really owns these companies and whether they are paying their taxes?

David Cameron: Let me be absolutely clear: for the United Kingdom, we have taken the unprecedented step—never done by Labour, never done previously by Conservatives—of an open beneficial ownership register. The Crown dependencies and overseas territories have to give full access to the registers of beneficial ownership. We did not choose the option of forcing them to have a public register, because we believed that if that was the case, we would get into the situation the right hon. Gentleman spoke about, and some of them might have walked away from this co-operation altogether. That is the point. The question is, are we going to be able to access the information? Yes. Are we going to be able to pursue tax evaders? Yes. Did any of these things happen under a Labour Government? No.

Jeremy Corbyn: The Prime Minister does talk very tough, and I grant him that. The only problem is that it is not a public register that he is offering us: he is offering us only a private register that some people can see.
It is quite interesting that the Premier of the Cayman Islands, Alden McLaughlin, is today apparently celebrating his victory over the Prime Minister, because he is saying that the information
“certainly will not be available publically or available directly by any UK or non-Cayman Islands agency.”
The Prime Minister is supposed to be chasing down tax evasion and tax avoidance; he is supposed to bringing it all into the open. If he cannot even persuade the Premiers of the Cayman Islands or Jersey to open up their books, where is the tough talk bringing the information we need to collect the taxes that should pay for the services that people need?

David Cameron: I think the right hon. Gentleman is misunderstanding what I have said. In terms of the UK, it is an absolute first to have a register of beneficial ownership that is public. He keeps saying it is not public; the British one will be public. Further to that—and I think this is important, because it goes to a question asked by the right hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr Lammy)—we are also saying to foreign companies that have dealings with Britain that they have to declare their properties, and the properties they own, which will remove a huge veil of secrecy from the ownership, for instance, of London property. Now, I am not saying we have completed all this work, but we have more tax information exchange, more registers of beneficial ownership, more chasing down tax evasion and avoidance, and more money recovered from businesses and individuals, and all of these things are things that have happened under this Government. The truth is he is running to catch up because Labour did nothing in 13 years.

Andrew Stephenson: My constituents John and Penny Clough, whose daughter Jane was tragically murdered by her ex-partner while he was out on bail, are campaigning to save Lancashire’s nine women’s refuges, which are currently at threat because Labour-run Lancashire County Council proposes to cut all their funding. Does the Prime Minister agree with the Clough family and me that Labour-run Lancashire County Council should prioritise the victims of domestic violence?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises a very moving case, and I know that the whole House will wish to join me in sending our sincere condolences to Mr and Mrs Clough. In terms of making sure that we stop violence against women and girls, no one should be living in fear of these crimes, which is why we committed £80 million of extra funding up to 2020 to tackle violence against women and girls. That includes funding for securing the future of refuges and other accommodation-based services, but it obviously helps if local councils make the right decisions as well.

Angus Robertson: The United Kingdom and its offshore territories and dependencies collectively sit at the top of the financial secrecy index of the Tax Justice Network. Since the leaking of the Panama papers, France has put Panama on a blacklist of unco-operative tax havens and the Mossack Fonseca offices have been raided by the police in Panama City. What have British authorities done specifically in relation to Mossack Fonseca and Panama since the leak of the Panama papers?

David Cameron: In terms of who is at the top of the pyramid of tax secrecy, I think it is now unfair to say that about our Crown dependencies and overseas territories, because they are going to co-operate with the three things that we have asked them to do in terms of the reporting standard, the exchange of tax information and access to registers of beneficial ownership. Frankly, that is more than we get out of some states in America, like Delaware. We in this House should be tough on all those that facilitate lack of transparency, but we should be accurate in the way we do it.
The right hon. Gentleman asked what we are doing about the Panama papers. We have a £10 million-funded, cross-agency review to get to the bottom of all the relevant information. That would hugely be helped if the newspapers and other investigative journalists now shared that information with tax inspectors so that we can get to the bottom of it.
On the right hon. Gentleman’s final question, we are happy to support blacklists, but we do not think a blacklist should be drawn up solely on the basis of a territory raising a low tax rate. We do not think that is the right approach. It is the approach the French have sometimes taken in the past. In terms of taking action against tax havens, this Government have done more than any previous one.

Angus Robertson: Some 3,250 Department for Work and Pensions staff have been specifically investigating benefit fraud, while only 300 HMRC staff have been systematically investigating tax evasion. Surely we should care equally about people abusing the tax system and those abusing the benefits system. Why have this Government had 10 times more staff dealing often with the poorest in society abusing benefits than with the super-rich evading their taxes?

David Cameron: I will look carefully at the right hon. Gentleman’s statistics, but they sound to me entirely bogus, for this reason: the predominant job of the DWP is to make sure that people receive their benefits, and the predominant job of HMRC is to make sure that people pay their taxes. All of the 26,000 people I spoke about earlier are making sure that people pay their taxes. The clue is in the title.

Jesse Norman: Will and Carol Davies and many other farmers in south Herefordshire are still awaiting their 2015 payments from the Rural Payments Agency, nearly four months after they were due. That follows the failure of the RPA website last year. It is causing great personal and financial distress, and threatens the future of farm businesses. Will the Prime Minister agree to meet farmers to discuss the issue and press the RPA to make these payments by the end of this month, and does he share my view that, at the very least, farmers should receive interest on the amounts overdue?

David Cameron: I recently met both the National Farmers Union and the Welsh NFU, and I continue to have meetings with farming organisations, including in my own constituency. I know there have been problems with the payment system. The latest figures show that some 87% of all claims have been paid. I believe that the figures for Herefordshire are in line with the national average, but obviously that is no consolation to the 13% that have not received those payments. That is why we have a financial hardship process. We are working with charities. We have made hardship payments amounting to more than £7 million, but we need to make sure that the lessons of how to make the system work better in future years are properly learned.

Douglas Carswell: If the British people vote to leave the European Union, will the Prime Minister remain in office to implement their decision?

David Cameron: Yes.

Neil Carmichael: Again on Europe, does the Prime Minister agree that the European Union is not just the world’s biggest single market but an ample source of foreign direct investment, providing 50% of the investment that we receive; and an excellent platform for supply chains to thrive and prosper, which gives them the ability to get the skills and the innovation that they need? That, for my constituency, means that Sartorius, Renishaw, Delphi and a whole load of other hi-tech companies thrive and prosper, as they do elsewhere in the United Kingdom.

David Cameron: I well remember my visit to Renishaw’s with my hon. Friend, where I was shown what I think was a world first: a bicycle that was printed on a 3D printer. I did not get on and give it a try, but it looked as though it would carry even someone of my weight. He is right, because the single market is 500 million people, and it is a great market for our businesses and our services. Increasingly, the market and the supply chain are getting more and more integrated. That is why we should think very carefully before separating ourselves from it.

Alistair Carmichael: Brain tumours are the biggest cancer killer of children and people under 40, but, despite that, research into them receives just over 1% of the UK’s national spend on cancer research. That will be the subject of a debate next Monday in Westminster Hall.  Will the Prime Minister have a word with the Secretary of State for Health, so that the Minister who answers that debate might be able to bring with him or her some long-overdue good news of change in this area?

David Cameron: I am very happy to do exactly as the right hon. Gentleman says. It is an important issue. We invest something like £1.7 billion a year in health research, but there is always this question when it comes to cancer research. The spending has gone up by a third over the last Parliament to nearly £135 million, but there is always the question about whether that is fairly distributed between all the different types of cancer. I will make sure that the Minister can give him a very full reply.

Chris Green: I have a steel producer at the heart of my constituency, and so I share concerns raised about the future of our steel industry and, more widely, of energy-intensive manufacturing. The north of England still has significant manufacturing, but it is being held back by green taxes, high energy costs and emissions targets. What more can my right hon. Friend do to help energy-intensive industries?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend raises an important point. The changes that we are making are going to save the steel industry more than £400 million by the end of this Parliament, and that is a good example of the steps that we can take. There was an excellent debate yesterday in the House about this issue. We need to work on everything we can do in terms of procurement. We need to make sure that we are taking action in the EU against dumping, and we are. We need to make sure that we reduce energy costs where we can. We stand by to work with any potential purchaser of the Port Talbot works, which will safeguard steel jobs in other parts of the country, to see how we can help on a commercial basis. I am absolutely satisfied that we are doing everything we possibly can. We cannot totally buck the global trend of this massive overcapacity in steel and massive decline in prices, but those are the key areas—in terms of power, in terms of plant and in terms of procurement—where we can help.

Stephen Timms: Research by the Sutton Trust shows that turning schools into academies does not necessarily improve them. Parents at thousands of excellent primary schools want them to continue to be maintained by their local authorities. Why are Ministers planning to overrule parents and force all those schools to become academies?

David Cameron: All the evidence shows that academies work as part of our education reforms. Let me give the House the evidence. If we look at schools that converted into academies, we see that 88% of them are either outstanding or good schools. If we look at the sponsored academies, which were often failing schools, we see that there has been, on average, a 10% improvement over the first two years. All the evidence is that the results are better, the freedoms lead to improvements and, where there are problems, intervention happens far faster with academies. We have got 1.4 million more children in good or outstanding schools, and I say, “Let’s finish the job.”

Nigel Huddleston: The Prime Minister has met many great people, but I believe he has yet to meet the Vale of Evesham’s very own Gus the “asparagus man”. Would he like to overcome that omission by joining me in the Vale of Evesham for the British asparagus festival, which starts on St George’s day, and show his support for our fantastic farming industry?

David Cameron: I am happy to say that my hon. Friend’s constituency is only one constituency away and we share the same railway line, so if there is an opportunity for some great British asparagus, I would be very happy to join him.

Jenny Chapman: May I take the Prime Minister back to his response to the hon. Member for Pendle (Andrew Stephenson)? I, too, have met Mr and Mrs Clough, and it was a truly dreadful case. Women’s refuges are facing absolute crisis. The changes that the Government propose to make to housing benefit will force the closure of women’s refuges. The Prime Minister needs urgently to look again at these changes, because unless he makes refuges exempt, they will be closing up and down the country. Will he do it?

David Cameron: I would say to the hon. Lady that we are doing the same kind of thing with these refuges as we did in the last Parliament with rape crisis centres. That is why the £80 million of funding is so important, and that is why my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government has written to local authorities to explain that this money is available to make sure those refuges are there.

Cheryl Gillan: As part of world autism awareness week last week, the National Autistic Society launched its biggest ever awareness campaign, called “Too Much Information”, and young Alex, the star of the film, was here in the House and met many MPs on Monday this week. The society’s research shows that some 50% of autistic people and their families sometimes do not even go out in public because they are afraid of what people think and of the public reaction to them. Will the Prime Minister meet me and the charity to discuss how the Government can support this campaign, and how we can help tackle the social isolation of so many families through this campaign and through Government assistance?

David Cameron: First, let me pay tribute to my right hon. Friend, who has been campaigning and legislating on this issue for many years now, including the landmark legislation that went through in the last Parliament. We have been working closely with the Autism Alliance and have invested some £325,000 since 2014, but she is right that more needs to be done in terms of helping families with autistic children and raising the profile and increasing the understanding of what having an autistic child or being autistic is all about. I think she is absolutely right to do that. Let me put in a plug for “The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time”, which is still available at the theatre on Whitehall. I took my children the other day. It is absolutely excellent, and will provide a better explanation of autism that perhaps anything we can discuss in this House.

Caroline Lucas: The authorities in Peru, El Salvador and Panama have raided offices of Mossack Fonseca, seizing documents and computer equipment, but no one has knocked on the door of the law firm’s branch in the UK. While recognising the operational independence of our enforcement agencies, does the Prime Minister share my deep concern that, as we speak, documents are no doubt being shredded and databases being wiped, undermining the opportunity to bring further potential wrongdoing to light?

David Cameron: The hon. Lady makes an important point, which is that we need to make sure that all the evidence coming out of Panama is properly investigated. That is why we have set up a special cross-agency team—including the National Crime Agency, Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs and other relevant bodies—to make sure we get to the bottom of what happened. But she is right to reference the fact that these organisations are operationally independent. It would be quite wrong for a Minister or a Prime Minister to order an investigator into a particular building in a particular way. That is not a Rubicon we want to cross in this House. Let us empower the National Crime Agency, empower HMRC, give them the resources and let them get on with the job.

Andrew Griffiths: May I draw the Prime Minister’s attention to the tragic death of Ayeeshia Jane Smith in my constituency? Ayeeshia was 21 months old when she was stamped on by her mother so violently that it punctured her heart. The pathologist said her body resembled a “car crash victim”. Yet Ayeeshia had been known to social services since the day she was born. They knew about the violent boyfriends; they knew about the domestic violence; they saw the doors kicked in; they smelt the cannabis; they saw the bruises; they saw the cuts; they saw the fingerprints on her little thighs—and they did nothing.
The Prime Minister will understand that people in Burton want to know how this could have happened. They are concerned to know that the serious case review has on its panel people who are directly involved in the organisations being investigated. Will the Prime Minister look at what we can do to make this and other serious case reviews more independent, so that we can make sure that no other child suffers the life and the death of Ayeeshia Jane Smith?

David Cameron: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise this. In the work that we all do, we get to hear about some hideous and horrific incidents, but for anyone watching television that night, and seeing the description of what happened to Ayeeshia, it simply took your breath away that people could behave in such a despicable and disgusting way towards their own children. In my view, no punishment in the world fits that sort of crime carried out by the child’s own parent. As my hon. Friend said, there will be a serious case review. I will look carefully at his suggestions, and I know that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of Education will do so as well. There are criticisms of the way in which these cases are conducted, but in this case, to start with, we must get on with the serious case review because we have got to get to the bottom of what went wrong.

Jo Stevens: There are currently more than 7,000 people in the UK who need an organ transplant, including 139 children, and many will die because of the shortage of available organs. The Welsh Labour Government have already introduced groundbreaking legislation for opt-out organ donation in Wales. Will the Prime Minister join me in supporting the “change the law for life” campaign for opt-out organ donation throughout the UK?

David Cameron: I am always happy to look at this again. I have looked at it before and have not come out in favour of opting out. We debated the matter in the last Parliament and made quite a lot of moves towards making opt in much easier. We found that different hospitals and different areas of the country had very different records for how well they do. My personal position is that we should support and continue to drive opt in, but the House of Commons can vote on this issue from time to time, and on whether it wants to go down the Welsh track rather than the track we are on. Personally, I think let us make opt in work better.

Gary Streeter: My right hon. Friend will be well aware that our colleague Lord Bates has just started a 2,000 mile walk from Buenos Aires to Rio de Janeiro, arriving in time for the Olympics to raise awareness for the Olympic Truce and money for refugee children. Will my right hon. Friend join me in wishing Lord Bates well on this epic journey, and also commit the Government to upholding the values and principles of the Olympic Truce?

David Cameron: I have already written to Michael Bates to wish him well on this long walk and to support the work that he has done over many years for the Olympic Truce. He leaves me a bit of a hole in the House of Lords, where he has been doing fantastic work for the Home Office on security issues, so we wish him a good walk and a speedy return.

Rupa Huq: At Ealing hospital, the technically junior, though highly experienced doctors I met last week are dismayed that the Government’s equality assessment of their new contract finds that it discriminates against women—more than half of them. As the Prime Minister is a self-confessed feminist, leading a progressive Government—So he says. Will he reverse this blatant injustice, which has no place in 2016?

David Cameron: I am grateful for the question and backhanded compliment. The contract is actually very pro-women because it involves a 13% basic pay rise, restricts the currently horrendous and unsafe hours that some junior doctors work, and gives greater guarantees about levels of pay and the amount of money that doctors will get. I think that as people start to work on it and with it, they will see that it is very pro-women.

Jacob Rees-Mogg: Over 200,000 economic migrants came from the European Union in the period for which we have figures. Yet the propaganda sheet sent out to the British people claims that we maintain control of our borders. Have we withdrawn from the free movement of people, or is that sheet simply untrue?

David Cameron: The truth is this: economic migrants who come to the European Union do not have the right to come to the UK. They are not European nationals. They are nationals of Pakistan, or Morocco, or Turkey. None of those people has that right. That is very important—and frankly that is why it is important that we send information to households: so that they can see the truth about what is proposed. What my hon. Friend has just put forward is a classic scare story. Britain has borders. Britain will keep its borders. We have got the best of both worlds.

Steven Paterson: Stirling University in my constituency is Scotland’s university for sporting excellence. Elite sports have been rocked over recent months by an international doping scandal, which threatens to see entire countries thrown out of and banned from major sporting competitions. Does the Prime Minister agree that, in this Olympic year, the World Anti-Doping Agency needs further support, and will he tell me what further action can be taken?

David Cameron: The hon. Gentleman is right to raise this issue. The World Anti-Doping Agency has made a lot of advances in recent years. The issue is relevant to our anti-corruption summit on 12 May, when we will look at corruption in sport and bring forward new codes of practice that we will adopt in this country and hope others will also adopt. There is also the question of whether doping should be made a specific criminal offence; that is something that we should look at and debate in this House.

Andrew Murrison: What progress has been made in implementing Sir Bruce Keogh’s 10 clinical standards, published in December 2013, which are absolutely essential for rolling out the seven-day NHS?

David Cameron: Perhaps I can write specifically to my hon. Friend on the clinical standards. What is good is that Bruce Keogh and others within the NHS support the vision of a seven-day NHS. We should of course pay tribute to all the doctors and nurses who work at weekends already—that is a very important point—but we are trying to move towards an NHS in which the individual has access to their family doctor seven days a week and hospitals work more on a seven-day basis, which will save lives and improve care. I will write to my hon. Friend about the specific detail.

Catherine West: Parent governors play a key role in local schools, supporting their children’s education and performing an important civic duty. Is the Prime Minister aware of the sadness and anger that has resulted from the forced academies announcement because the duty for each school to have parent governors will be removed, and will he urgently review this attack on parents?

David Cameron: I am absolutely delighted that the hon. Lady asked that question, as I know we will be debating the issue later today. Let me be clear: we support parent governors and think that they have a great role to play, but no school should think that simply by having parent governors it has solved the problem about how to engage with parents. Let me say to her that there is something in the Labour motion for today’s debate that is actually inaccurate and should be withdrawn. It says that the White Paper
“proposes the removal of parent governors from school governing bodies”.
It does no such thing. As well as not getting his tax return in on time, the Leader of the Opposition is bringing forward motions to this House that are simply wrong.

Points of Order

Tom Brake: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. On 2 December, during the debate on Syria, the Prime Minister promised that there would be regular quarterly progress reports to this House on the military action against Daesh. The longest a quarter could last is 92 days, but it is now 133 days since that pledge was made. Have you had any indication from the Government as to whether they intend to make that quarterly progress report so that we can see what action is being taken and whether it is effective?

John Bercow: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for his point of order and his courtesy in giving me advance notice of it. The question of how a Government fulfil a commitment to the House is principally a matter for Ministers. Having taken a keen interest in this matter, the right hon. Gentleman will know that a report was presented to the House by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs in December, and that a second report, which I think was billed or tagged as a quarterly report, was provided by the Secretary of State for International Development on 8 February. If memory serves me correctly, it was an oral statement, and it may be that the right hon. Gentleman and some other Members were hoping for—or even expecting—a written report. That is, however, not a matter for the Chair.
To be fair, the Government have made a large number of statements to the House over the past few years—that is a matter not of speculation but of fact. The only point I would make gently is that since the Foreign Secretary had unavoidably to be absent from Foreign Office questions yesterday—that prompted a modicum of comment from his own side although he had done me the courtesy of notifying me beforehand—it might be thought a good idea for a subsequent report to be provided by him to the House. If there is an appetite for that report to be oral, I know that it will be delivered by the Foreign Secretary with great dexterity. It would also have the additional “advantage”—I say that in inverted commas because it is a matter for the House to decide—of pleasing a right hon. Gentleman from the Liberal Democrat Benches.

Paul Blomfield: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. You will be aware of the decision by the Department for Business, Innovation and Skills to close its Sheffield policy office. Despite repeated requests at the BIS Select Committee for the Department to share the figures on which that decision was based, the permanent secretary told the Committee:
“I don’t think I can point you to one specific document which covers specifically the Sheffield issue.”
In answer to a question about costs from my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney South and Shoreditch (Meg Hillier) at the Public Accounts Committee, he said that the decision was
“not based on individual cost-benefit analysis of a static closure.”
I have had access to a document entitled “BIS 2020—Finance and Headcount outline”, which specifically covers the Sheffield issue and is, in the permanent secretary’s words,
“an individual cost-benefit analysis of a static closure.”
Will you clarify, Mr Speaker, whether the permanent secretary’s words constitute misleading the House, and advise me on how I can get the information in front of the two Committees of the House that have requested it?

John Bercow: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but my instinctive reaction is that exegesis of what is said by the Government, including permanent secretaries, and adjudication upon it, is not a proper matter for the Chair. I think it is safer to keep out of that. It may well be that it is a subject of some dispute on which the hon. Gentleman is dissatisfied, but I underline that it is for the Committees concerned to press for the information that they require. If they are dissatisfied with what they have or have not received, they should persist, and there are well-established procedures for doing so. I have a feeling, however, that by putting his concerns on the record, the hon. Gentleman may find that the Government are able and inclined to offer the information he requires.

Jake Berry: On a point of order, Mr Speaker. I apologise for not giving you advance notice of this point of order, but I had hoped that it would be raised during Prime Minister’s questions. On 28 October 2015 in a letter to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister, Sir John Chilcot said that the text of the Iraq report would be available in the week commencing 18 April 2016, at which point it would be passed to the security services for checking. Given that that is next Monday, I wonder whether you have received notice from any Minister who intends to make a statement to the House, to update it as to when that process will be finished and the long-awaited report will be available?

John Bercow: The short answer is that I have received no such indication of an imminent statement on the matter. When this issue has been aired in the House, the sense of dissatisfaction across the Chamber has been audible not just to the Chair, but to millions of people throughout the country. It has become exceptionally and excessively protracted. I understand the hon. Gentleman’s frustration. He has put his point on the record again, and I hope that it will have been heard in the appropriate quarters. Have I received an indication of a statement? I am afraid I have not.

IMPROVEMENT OF RAIL PASSENGER SERVICES (USE OF DISRUPTION PAYMENTS)

Motion for leave to bring in a Bill (Standing Order No. 23)

Joan Ryan: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to require Schedule 8 disruption payments between Network Rail and train operating companies to be allocated to specified projects aimed at increasing the quality, value for money or reliability of passengers’ experience of railway travel and associated services; and for connected purposes.
I am grateful for the opportunity to present the Bill to the House today, the purposes of which are threefold. First, the Bill seeks to improve the services on offer to rail commuters across the country. Secondly, it aims to ensure that millions of pounds of taxpayers’ money is directed towards benefiting passengers, rather than lining the pockets of train operating companies. Thirdly, the Bill seeks to shine a light on a part of the rail industry that is bewildering in its complexity, and to open it up to greater public scrutiny and accountability. The Bill would create a responsibility for the regulator to guarantee that any net income made by train operators from schedule 8 payments in totality is used to fund overall passenger benefits on the network. It is important to note that the Bill is not intended to stop or replace current compensation arrangements between train operators and passengers, which reimburse passengers for delays.
Rail commuters in Enfield and throughout the country are getting a raw deal. They are paying sky-high ticket prices for a rock-bottom service. They are currently having to endure the worst performance in terms of train punctuality for almost a decade. In 2014-15, 47 million passenger journeys on the railways were either cancelled or delayed. Members of the public are shocked when they learn that train operators can actually make a profit from Network Rail failures. If trains are delayed or cancelled and the responsibility lies with Network Rail—for instance, when points do not work or power fails—Network Rail makes compensation payments to the train operators. These are known as intra-industry arrangements or schedule 8 disruption payments. However, train operators are not obliged to reinvest any of that money in services for the benefit of passengers.
The payments received from Network Rail bear no relation whatever to the passenger compensation schemes between the train operators and their customers. Indeed, only a fraction of what train operators receive in payments from Network Rail is ever passed on to commuters whose journeys have been disrupted. Passengers are certainly not helped to claim what they are owed for delays, given that train operators make it so difficult for them to access compensation. It is really important that passengers are made more aware of their rights. I applaud the recent work of Which? and its “Make rail refunds easier” campaign, putting pressure on the rail regulator and train operators to make this whole process simpler, fairer and more accessible to commuters.
I call on the Government to bring rail travel within the EU-compliant Consumer Rights Act 2015. The unfairness of the current structure of railway compensation payments is really brought to light when we consider how much money is involved and how poorly passengers  are compensated compared with train operators. I commend the recent work of my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham South (Lilian Greenwood) and the shadow Transport team to expose this issue. Their analysis has shown that between 2010 and 2015 Network Rail paid out £575 million to train operators in schedule 8 payments. Over the same period, train operators provided compensation to passengers to the tune of only £73 million. That is a compensation gap of more than half a billion pounds, a substantial boost to train operating companies’ profit margins.
I accept that train operators should be able to cover the costs of any loss of revenue they incur that arise from the unplanned delays caused by Network Rail. What they should not be able to do, however, is make a profit over and above those costs from train delays and cancellations. That is just plain wrong.
In 2014-15, the Government provided a grant payment to Network Rail of £3.8 billion. Therefore, to add insult to injury, a significant amount of taxpayers’ money flows from Network Rail back to private train operating companies, many of them ultimately owned by foreign Governments, under schedule 8 payments. It is scandalous that a system can be designed in such a way that the very people using the rail network and who are most affected by the poor standard of service on offer—tax-paying commuters—can end up contributing to train operators’ profits out of their own misery! How can this be right? Where is the accountability to the fare-paying, taxpaying public for how this system operates and where this money goes?
The rail expert Christian Wolmar has said:
“In an ideal world, the train operators would only get back the actual money that unexpected delays costs them. However, instead the level is determined by an economic model that only very vaguely reflects the impact of delays felt by passengers. So vaguely, in fact, to be meaningless.”
He went on to say that the current system
“does the railways no credit and creates the perverse incentives that plague the industry.”
I could not agree more; the situation must change. We need a way of linking schedule 8 payments to benefits that improve the customer experience of the railways. This Bill would make that happen.
I want the rail regulator to be given the power to ensure that train operating companies have to provide full disclosure of any net profit they might make from schedule 8 payments. This information should be made available to the public. With rigorous monitoring by the regulator, this money should be put towards improving the customer experience and providing a high-value service. Such measures could include retaining ticket office staff; facilitating easier access to station platforms and trains; free wi-fi on trains; or using the money towards paying for a guarantee that trains will not miss out stops—a particular frustration for a number of my constituents. These are just a few suggestions, and I think that, should this Bill become law, it would be a very good idea to consult passengers on the improvements they want to see to their services.
It is clear from recent evidence that the rail regulator understands many of the issues I am looking to address with this Bill. At the end of last year, the regulator and Network Rail agreed a £4 million rail reparation fund to benefit directly commuters affected by poor performance on routes provided by Thameslink, Southern and the  Gatwick Express services. By increasing the number of staff at stations, employing more track workers to deal with disruptions and introducing incident management software to resolve issues on routes more quickly, the regulator sought to “enhance” the services for passengers affected by poor performance.
I want a permanent rather than a temporary scheme in place that can benefit all passengers across the country. However, the rail reparation fund example is an important first step by the regulator. What it has set out to achieve reinforces the fundamental principle that lies at the heart of the Bill before us—that improving rail passengers’ services should be the top priority for Network Rail and train operators. Commuters should not be left waiting on station platforms while train operators pick up big profits from the rail industry’s complex, opaque and unfair compensation arrangements.
I would like to thank colleagues from across the House who have agreed to sponsor my motion today. That support shows the extent to which we all want to see the rail industry reformed for the benefit of passengers—our constituents. It is for all these reasons that I commend this Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Ordered,
That Joan Ryan, Tom Brake, Julie Elliott, Mrs Louise Ellman, Frank Field, Kelvin Hopkins, Peter Kyle, Caroline Lucas, Siobhain McDonagh, Will Quince, Henry Smith and Mr Charles Walker present the Bill.
Joan Ryan accordingly presented the Bill.
Bill read the First time; to be read a Second time on Friday 22 April 2016, and to be printed (Bill 160).

OPPOSITION DAY - [UN-ALLOTTED DAY]OPPOSITION DAY

TAX AVOIDANCE AND EVASION

John Martin McDonnell: I beg to move,
That this House notes with concern the revelations contained within the Panama Papers and recognises the widespread public view that individuals and companies should pay their fair share of tax; and calls upon the Government to implement Labour’s Tax Transparency Enforcement Programme which includes: an immediate public inquiry into the revelations in the Panama Papers, HMRC being properly resourced to investigate tax avoidance and evasion, greater public sector transparency to ensure foreign companies wanting to tender for public sector contracts publicly list their beneficial owners, consultation on proposals for foreign companies wanting to own UK property to have their beneficial owners listed publicly, working with banks to provide further information over beneficial ownership for all companies and whom they work for, the swift implementation of full public country-by-country reporting with a fair turnover threshold as well as ensuring robust protection for whistle blowers in this area, ensuring stricter minimum standards of transparency of company and trust ownership for Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories, consideration of the development of the Ramsey Principle by courts, implementation of an immediate review into the registry of trusts, and the strengthening and extension of the General Anti-Avoidance Rule to cover offshore abuses.
I see that the Chancellor is absent again today. Much as I look forward to seeing the various members of his Treasury team, is there a specific reason why he is not here for this important debate? I am happy to give way. [Interruption.] Is it critical? In respect of his attendance at the International Monetary Fund, he might look at yesterday’s IMF report that downgraded the growth expectations for our economy and think again about the policies he is pursuing, which fail to invest in the infrastructure, skills and new technology that our economy needs to compete in the world market. Perhaps we will send him a letter and he can say hello to the Chamber some time when he happens to be passing through.
We need to move the debate about tax avoidance and evasion on to the issue of the fairness and effectiveness of our tax system, and we need to do so as constructively as we can. The leak of documents from Panama lawyers Mossack Fonseca has provoked an extraordinary public discussion, and an entire hidden world has been brought into the light. What it reveals is profoundly unsettling.
We now know that Mossack Fonseca sat at the centre of a vast web of tax evasion and tax avoidance. The world’s super-rich commissioned its services to hide their income and wealth from the public gaze. Some of them had plainly criminal intentions. Money from the Brink’s-Mat robbery was allegedly laundered through a shell company set up by Mossack Fonseca, while the Mexican drug baron Rafael Caro Quintero held his property through a shell company established by Mossack Fonseca.

James Cartlidge: Disturbing points have been raised about Putin and the Russian regime. Will the hon. Gentleman confirm whether the shadow Treasury spokesman, his hon. Friend the Member  for Leeds East (Richard Burgon), raised any of those points about the Russian Administration when on “Russia Today”?

John Martin McDonnell: That certainly will happen in future.
Even if they were not criminals, many of Mossack Fonseca’s clients, if not all, had the strong intention of evading or avoiding the taxes that would otherwise have been due from them.

Catherine West: I thank my hon. Friend for his excellent speech and for bringing this debate to the House. Does he agree that this is a real issue for people in London, particularly in respect of the impact that these shady characters have on our London property market? It is a tragedy that Londoners, who want to remain in London, have to move outside it because these criminal elements are messing up the international finance system.

John Martin McDonnell: That confirms the need for open and public disclosure of beneficiary ownership and beneficiary interests. As my hon. Friend and every London MP knows, speculation with property in this capital city denies many of our constituents a decent roof over their heads.

Jo Cox: Will my hon. Friend give way?

John Martin McDonnell: Let me press on a little, and I shall give way shortly.
Mossack Fonseca exploited the presence of loopholes and entire jurisdictions that favour secrecy and minimal taxation. We can expect further news over the next few weeks and months, as the investigative work continues. Yesterday the Panama headquarters of Mossack Fonseca was raided, but 10 days on since the initial leak, I believe that its UK offices in Hitchin—not far away—have not been, despite the raising of concerns by the firm’s founder about the lack of due diligence performed by the UK office in relation to a company in its charge, and a clear legal precedent for the UK authorities to intervene.
There may be more revelations to come, set to tarnish individual reputations. I put this mildly: the Prime Minister has done himself no favours over the last 10 days. A lesson for the future is that, when asked a straight question, one should answer straightforwardly and straight away. The Prime Minister could and should have come clean about his relationship with Blairmore Holdings far earlier.

Sammy Wilson: Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will give a straight answer to a straight question. Does he regret the support that he gave to the IRA? They are still laundering money and still avoiding taxes in Northern Ireland, and he supported their activities in the past.

John Martin McDonnell: I have never given the IRA support in relation to money laundering or any other activity. Let me make absolutely clear that wherever laundering takes place, it is illegal and should be tackled, and I shall welcome the hon. Gentleman’s future contribution to the establishment of procedures to ensure that that happens.

Jo Cox: Having spent 10 years as an aid worker, I am acutely aware of the millions of pounds that are lost to development in poor countries as a result of these tax havens. Does my hon. Friend agree that, before the anti-corruption summit that will take place in London in May, the Prime Minister needs to do far more to reassure the House that he will accelerate his efforts to persuade British overseas territories to mirror the United Kingdom’s welcome move, and establish a transparent public register of beneficial ownership?

John Martin McDonnell: The issue of a public register is critical to any measures that are taken in the future, because such a register will enable these kleptocrats to be held to account—particularly in the developing world, where they have denied development resources to the economies of their countries.

Andrew Gwynne: Transparency throughout the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories is, of course, crucial. Does not the lack of such transparency further reinforce the message to our constituents that there is one tax rule for the rich and powerful, and another for everyone else?

John Martin McDonnell: One of the key things that I think the whole House must do in the coming period is re-establish the credibility and fairness of our taxation system, which has been so badly damaged.

Christopher Pincher: The shadow Chancellor has called for greater transparency on the part of the Crown dependencies. Can he explain why this is the first time he has made such a call? Why he did not make such calls during the 13 years of the last Labour Government?

John Martin McDonnell: May I ask the hon. Gentleman—[Hon. Members: “Answer!”] I am. Calm down.
If the hon. Gentleman looks at my parliamentary record over the last 18 years, he will see that I was one of the first MPs to set up the tax justice meetings in the House that brought the Tax Justice Network here, and to do the necessary research. He will also see that, as shadow Chancellor, I have commissioned a review of HMRC’s activities in terms of the tax base, including those relating to avoidance and evasion. However, I understand his concern. I have worked on this issue on a cross-party basis for a number of years, and have criticised successive Governments for not doing enough.

Albert Owen: My hon. Friend has spoken of tax fairness. Does he agree that the Panama papers have revealed a channelling of moneys to the very rich while the poor have to pay their taxes, and that that comes on top of a Budget in which capital gains tax was cut for the top 3% through changes in personal independence payments for the disabled? Does that not show that we are not “all in it together”?

John Martin McDonnell: I think that what people found extremely disappointing in the Budget debate was that, as my hon. Friend says, the cut in capital gains tax was being paid for by cuts in benefits for people with disabilities. That did indeed demonstrate very starkly that we were not all in it together. Perhaps these revelations will  enable us to take steps towards the establishment of a fair taxation system that will fund our public services effectively.

Jonathan Edwards: I thank the shadow Chancellor for being so generous with his time.
Last night, an all-party parliamentary group to which I belong held an excellent meeting with a journalist from The Guardian and the campaigners who exposed the scandal. They informed us that openness and transparency in the overseas territories could be achieved quite simply through an Order in Council from the United Kingdom Government. The achievement of those aims is a matter of will on the UK Government’s part.

John Martin McDonnell: My hon. Friend the shadow Leader of the House made that point last week, giving example after example of cases in which Orders in Council had been issued. They have been used very effectively by successive Governments, and it bewilders me that this Government are not taking that opportunity now.

Robert Jenrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Martin McDonnell: May I press on for a little while? I am only on the third page of my speech. This is getting ridiculous. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, but I have already given way a fair amount. As you know, Mr Speaker, I am generous, but I do not want to speak for too long.
Even today, we have not seen the Prime Minister’s full tax return or that of the Chancellor, and it is important that that should happen. The Prime Minister established the principle, which I advocated three months ago, that the Prime Minister, the Chancellor, the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor should publish their tax returns—not summaries; their full tax returns—but that has not happened.
However, what confronts us today is an issue far bigger than any individual. At the centre of the allegations is a single issue. The fundamental problem is not tax avoidance by this individual or that company; those are symptoms of the disease. The fundamental issue is the corruption of democracy itself. At the core of our parliamentary system is the idea that those who levy taxes on the people are accountable to the people. If those who make decisions about our taxation system are believed to be avoiding paying their own taxes, that undermines the whole credibility of our system.

James Cartlidge: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Martin McDonnell: I had better give way to the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) first, because otherwise he will be disappointed.

Robert Jenrick: I am grateful to the shadow Chancellor. May I hark back to the point about Orders in Council? Was the shadow Chancellor surprised to learn that his friend and leader, the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn), once described the use of Orders in Council by the last Labour Government as “extremely  undemocratic” and, in fact, “medieval? Does he think that the Leader of the Opposition is a johnny-come-lately on this issue?

John Martin McDonnell: It depends on the issue that is being addressed. Sometimes harking back to the medieval period may be the most effective way of dealing with these problems.

James Cartlidge: rose—

John Martin McDonnell: I must press on. I will give way to the hon. Gentleman later, if that is okay.
The common understanding is also that those who live here and benefit from public services will make a proportionate contribution towards them. The level of taxation may vary—sometimes it is higher, sometimes lower—but because we have a shared sense of fairness, we expect those with the broadest shoulders to carry the greatest burden in taxes. Over the last 30 years, however, we have witnessed the growth of wealth inequality on such a scale that it has undermined that basic principle of democracy. Figures from Oxfam suggest that the richest 1% own more than the rest of the world combined.

James Cartlidge: rose—

John Martin McDonnell: Let me press on for a little while. I will return to the hon. Gentleman, I promise.
Great hoards of assets, in property and in financial wealth, have been built up. According to the best available measures, the levels of income inequality in Britain today are climbing as high as they were at the time of the first world war. The share of income going to the super-rich has risen almost inexorably for three decades. We are returning to the levels of inequality that were experienced before universal suffrage—before women had the vote, and before the development of universal free education and healthcare—in a world that existed before the gains of democracy brought obscene levels of wealth inequality under control, and created a more humane society for the majority.

James Cartlidge: rose—

John Martin McDonnell: Let me press on. I will come back to the hon. Gentleman.
The world of the Rockefellers and the robber barons is the one to which we are returning: a world in which there is immense, almost unimaginable wealth for a gilded elite, but insecurity for growing numbers. Much of that wealth is now held offshore in secretive, unaccountable tax havens. According to the most recent estimate, $21 trillion dollars, equivalent to a third of global GDP, is hidden from taxation systems in global tax havens. It is estimated that, if taxed fairly, that wealth would raise $188 billion a year in extra taxation.
This is not about a few families seeking to “minimise their tax bill”, as was claimed by the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh). It is systematic. An offshore world is operating parallel with the world in which the rest of us live. This is not an accident. The offshore world is being constructed, piece by piece, by multinational corporations and the super-rich, aided by shady offshore operations such as Mossack Fonseca, and—we must be honest about this—supposedly reputable  accountancy firms here in London are also playing their part. According to the Public Accounts Committee, PwC has aided tax avoidance “on an industrial scale”. Deloitte has advised big businesses on avoiding tax in African countries. Ernst and Young act as tax advisers to Facebook, Apple and Google and just last month KPMG had one of its tax-avoidance schemes declared illegal by the High Court. Together, the big four accountancy firms in this country earn at least £2 billion annually from their tax operations.
But it is not just them. Banks headquartered and operating in London have been particularly proficient in directing their funds through Mossack Fonseca shell companies. HSBC and its affiliates created more offshore companies through Mossack Fonseca—over 2,300 in total—than any other bank. Coutts, a subsidiary of RBS, created over 500 offshore companies through its subsidiary in Jersey. Supposedly reputable companies are aiding and abetting the systematic abuse of our tax system.
We should be clear: the City of London is being viewed by many as a tax haven in the middle of a dense network of havens created for the super-rich to avoid the taxes the rest of us must pay.

James Cartlidge: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that in 2010 the richest 1% contributed 25% of all tax, and does he welcome the fact that the Chancellor revealed in the Budget that that has now increased to 28%?

John Martin McDonnell: It is not just a matter of tax, is it? It is not just a matter of income tax, either. Of course I recognise those figures, but distributional analysis has been undertaken independently of the Government. Conservative party policy since 2010 has seen some of the biggest losses for the poorest, not the wealthiest. The Women’s Budget Group put together the tax gains, the tax paid, the services cut and the benefit cuts. The poorest 10% will lose 21% of their income annually as a result of this Government’s policy—five times more than the top 10%. The analysis of the Institute for Fiscal Studies clearly shows that this year’s Budget hits the poorest 80% harder than the richest. Eighty per cent. of those cuts fall on whom? It is on women.

Huw Merriman: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way—he is always generous with his time. As well as appreciating the fact that 1% of the highest-income earners pay 28%, would he consider that since 2010 this Government have taken millions out of tax altogether by increasing the tax allowance—it is now £11,500?

John Martin McDonnell: Let me deal with the tax threshold issue. The IFS has said that the biggest gains from the shift in the lower tax thresholds come for the higher earners. They are the ones who get the most and they benefit from the tax threshold moves. It describes the shifting of the tax thresholds as
“very much a giveaway to the better off”.

Robert Jenrick: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Martin McDonnell: I gave way earlier to the hon. Gentleman. I will press on because I know that others want to speak and I am sure he will want to speak himself.
This is a world that the super-rich inhabit. They live by different rules and it is an alien world for the majority of the rest of us.

Maria Caulfield: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that his party’s opposition to the removal of the family home from the income tax threshold affects those on the lowest incomes in London and the south-east because it will mean that only the wealthy can afford to stay in London when the family home is sold and they have to pay inheritance tax?

John Martin McDonnell: The hon. Lady makes an important point. We have supported the increase in tax thresholds to try to take people out of tax altogether, but the benefits overall have actually accrued to the highest earners rather than the lowest and we need a more sophisticated system than that. With regard to inheritance tax, the cut that was made this time around by the Government benefited the top 5% of the population. There must be a better way of ensuring that people can pass on their wealth to their children, rather than just benefiting the super-rich. We have to look at that again. I am happy to do that and meet her to discuss it.

Maria Caulfield: I thank the hon. Gentleman for being extremely generous in giving way, but there are low-income families in London and the south-east whose home’s value has increased beyond recognition. They are now asset rich but income poor. How will the Labour party help them if it does not take them out of inheritance tax?

John Martin McDonnell: The important thing now, as my hon. Friend the Member for Bolsover (Mr Skinner) has said, is that we build more homes to house those people. That will be an effective way of reducing prices, too. That will give access to home ownership to thousands more in the capital.

David Anderson: Can we put this discussion on thresholds to bed once and for all? The people who are paying 28% income tax will get a small rise. Every one of us standing here will get a 10% pay rise next year and we will get a much bigger tax threshold rise than the ordinary men and women of this country. That is what they cannot understand. We and the super-rich are getting richer. They keep getting poorer. That is what this debate is about—it is about fairness.

John Martin McDonnell: We have to find a better way in our taxation system to benefit those at the lower end of the scale. At the moment, although we are happy with the rise in tax thresholds, there needs to be a way to compensate for that more equitably. Again, it is not us saying this; it is the IFS and many other independent assessors. They are saying that this is not the most effective way of redistributing wealth in this country.
May I go back to my speech? I do not want to try your patience, Mr Speaker.
It is an alien world for the majority of us. It is a world of offshore trusts and legal trickery that would put Byzantium to shame; a world in which it is perfectly normal to buy property in London through a company registered in the British Virgin Islands, managed by lawyers in Panama with offices in Bermuda; a world in  which citizenship and attachment to a country are something to pick and to choose depending on price. The scandal of the “non-doms” continues, in which a few super-rich can pay a notional fee instead of the taxes that would otherwise be due from them as residents.
Tucked away in this year’s Budget was an extraordinary clause that wrote off selected non-doms’ entire capital gains tax bill on any gains made before April 2017—a giveaway to the wealthy. This is not the world that most of us live in. Most of us pay our taxes. Contrary to the shocking opinion of the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan), that is not because we live in a country of “low achievers”, as he described them. We do so because we understand that a decent society depends on the contributions all of us make. Without the payment of taxes, we cannot run the public services that are essential to a decent society.

Christopher Pincher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Martin McDonnell: Let me press on. I have given way to the hon. Gentleman once.
We do not have access to the specialist services that Mossack Fonseca and other companies provide. We cannot negotiate with HMRC about when and how much to pay in tax. However, for the global elite, tax avoidance is as much a part of their world as the yachts and the mansions. This world is a corrosive influence on our democracy. The more the super-rich can escape the burden of taxation, the more it falls on the rest of us in society.
It is morally wrong that a billionaire oligarch should be paying proportionately less in taxes than the migrant cleaner of his mansion. It is a disgrace that an immense global corporation such as Google should pay no corporation tax for nearly a decade, while small businesses are chased for tiny amounts. It is an affront to the basic principles of our democracy that large corporations should be able to negotiate sweetheart deals with HMRC. [Interruption.] It is also a corrosion of democracy when a revolving door apparently exists between HMRC, charged with collecting taxes—[Interruption.]

John Bercow: Order. It is very unseemly when the shadow Chancellor is addressing the House for there to be a side exchange between a member of the Opposition Front-Bench team and the hon. Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). He must not get into this bad habit. His father-in-law is a distinguished Member. He will tell him how to behave properly, and I will do so as well.

John Martin McDonnell: It is always best to keep the in-laws on-side, Mr Speaker.
It is a disgrace that an immense global corporation such as Google should pay no corporation tax for a decade, while small businesses are chased for tiny amounts. It is an affront to the basic principles of our democracy that large corporations should be able to negotiate sweetheart deals with HMRC. It is also a corrosion of democracy when a revolving door apparently exists between HMRC, which is charged with collecting taxes, and major accountancy firms whose business depends  on minimising taxes. HMRC’s last director went to work for Deloitte, and now we find that the executive director appointed by HMRC to oversee its inquiry into the Panama leaks is a former adviser to tax havens who believes that tax is a form of “legalised extortion”. The structures of Government are being bent out of shape by tax avoidance. Decisions are warped around the need to protect the interests and wealth of the super-rich and of giant corporations. Democracy becomes corroded.
On party donations, the Conservatives receive more than half their election campaign funding from hedge funds. In public view, here in London, its party leadership has made loud and repeated noises about tax avoidance, yet its MEPs in Brussels have voted six times, on instructions from the Treasury, to block the EU-wide measures against tax avoidance. As we have heard in evidence this week, the Prime Minister lobbied the EU Commission in 2013 to remove offshore trusts from new tighter EU regulations on avoidance. The Conservatives’ own record reveals that people no longer trust them on this issue. Not only have they impeded efforts to clamp down on tax avoidance, but these schemes directly implicate senior figures in the Conservative party. Several Conservative party donors, three former Conservative MPs and six Members of the House of Lords are among those with connections to companies on the books of the offshore law firm Mossack Fonseca.
As the super-rich flee their obligations to society, the burden of taxation is pushed elsewhere. As I have said, independent assessments of the tax and benefit changes introduced since May 2015 show that the poorest 10% are forecast to see their incomes fall by more than 20% by 2020, with 80% of the burden falling on women. It is the poorest and those least able to carry the burden who will suffer the most under this Government. An economic system that allows tax avoidance on this scale is one in which the inventor and the entrepreneur come second to the owner of wealth, the worker comes second to the plutocrat and the taxpayer come second to the tax dodger. It is a system in which inherited wealth and privilege, rather than talent and effort, are rewarded.
There has been criticism of the last Labour Government, and I was not enamoured of all their economic policies, but they did take measures against avoidance. Their measures on corporation tax avoidance are forecast—not by me, but by the Financial Times—to raise 10 times as much revenue as the present Chancellor’s schemes.
The Panama leaks must act as a spur to decisive action. In response to the leaks, the Government have stepped up their rhetoric on tax evasion but much of what has been announced falls short of what is needed or repeats existing announcements. I remind Ministers that page 223 of the Office for Budget Responsibility report that accompanied this year’s Budget outlined a disclosure scheme for companies operating in Jersey, Guernsey and the Isle of Man. The report said that owing to HMRC’s consistent underfunding, it did not have the resources to follow up on the links of the scheme. I again offer some words of advice to those on the Government Front Bench: fewer press releases and more action. It is time to move on and to close down tax havens and clean up this muck of avoidance.
Let us take this step by step. We need an immediate and full public inquiry into the Panama leaks. The Government’s proposed taskforce will report to members  of the Government, the Chancellor and the Home Secretary, who are members of a party funded by donors featured in the Panama papers. To have any credibility, the inquiry must be fully independent. We must shine a light on, and start to prise apart, the corrupt networks that operate through tax havens. Part of that will involve creating a proper register of MPs’ interests. Members of this House should not be able to hide behind spurious claims of privacy. We want HMRC to be properly resourced to chase down the tax avoiders, with a new specialist unit dedicated to the task. Foreign firms bidding for Government contracts here should be required to name their owners. Full, public, country-by-country reporting of earnings and ownership by companies and trusts is a necessity if fair amounts of taxation are to be charged.
The measures announced by the EU this week do not go nearly far enough, requiring only partial reporting by companies. The turnover threshold is far too high, and Labour MEPs in Europe will be pushing to get that figure reduced much lower to make it more difficult for large corporations to dodge paying their fair share of tax. Banks need to reveal the beneficial ownership of companies and trusts they work with. That means creating a public register of ownership of companies and trusts, and not only of companies, as the Government are currently enforcing. The Prime Minister has a role to play in this, as it was he who lobbied for the exclusion of trusts from the proposed EU measures. Labour will work alongside leading tax experts to lead a review into publishing a public register of the trusts too often used to avoid paying tax and reduce transparency in our tax system.
We must ensure that Crown dependencies and overseas territories enforce far stricter minimum standards of transparency for company and trust ownership. The Government’s current programme for reform is being laughed at by the tax havens. As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said today, it was only this week, after signing a new deal on beneficial ownership, that the Cayman Islands Premier Alden McLaughlin celebrated a victory over the UK, saying:
“This is what we wanted, this is what we have been pushing for three years”.
The truth is that the Government are playing into the hands of those who want to abuse the tax system.

Christopher Pincher: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

John Martin McDonnell: Let me press on if I can.
We need serious action on enforcement. We need not central registers but, as Christian Aid and others are calling for, full public registers accessible to all, including journalists and other businesses, if we are going to curb the activities exposed in the Panama papers. This package of measures is Labour’s tax transparency and enforcement programme. We believe that it offers a sound basis to take the first necessary steps against avoidance and towards openness and transparency. We are presenting it today as we want to see immediate effective action.
This is a test of leadership. The leadership of the Conservative party could take this opportunity to correct the series of errors that it has made. It could join us today in taking effective steps towards dealing seriously with avoidance. People want to see the Conservatives  take these steps. Otherwise, they will rightly stand accused of siding with the wrong people and of being the party of the tax avoiders. Incidentally, it was not long ago that the Chancellor of the Exchequer appeared on television to give advice on the “pretty clever financial products”, as he described them, that would allow the wealthy to dodge inheritance tax.

Dennis Skinner: Dodge? Can you use that word?

John Martin McDonnell: Don’t tempt me, Mr Speaker.
Some of the Conservative party’s Back Benchers believe that tax avoidance is a sign of success. The party’s donors are named in the Panama papers, and the Prime Minister himself is a direct beneficiary of a scheme set up in an offshore tax haven through his prior ownership of Blairmore Holdings shares.
The Panama leaks have presented a stark political choice. Do we continue to allow a system of corruption and avoidance, or do we now take the action necessary to restore fairness to our taxation system and to correct the abuse of democracy? That is the challenge, and the choice, ahead of us. I urge the Government and all Members of this House to join us in a serious programme of work to tackle the abuse of our tax system. The Government can make a start by supporting our motion today and adopting Labour’s tax transparency enforcement programme. I commend this motion to the House.

David Gauke: It is a great pleasure, for the second time this week, for the Government to be able to inform the House about how much more we have done than the previous Government to tackle evasion, avoidance and aggressive tax planning and to become a world leader in tax transparency. In 2010, we inherited a situation in which no one could find out who really owned a company in the UK or find out the details of a London property if it was owned by a foreign company. Not only were the international rules governing multinational companies out of date, allowing the tax base to be eroded and profits to be shifted, but there was no attempt to bring those rules up to date. Nor was there any sign that those matters were going to change. Loopholes, secrecy and concealment are the issues that we are sorting out, not only through what we are doing in the UK but through our firm and decisive action overseas.

John Martin McDonnell: I want to clarify something that the Minister just said. Can he confirm that, under his proposals, members of the public will not have access to the register of beneficial owners of companies and trusts in overseas territories or elsewhere?

David Gauke: Let me tell the hon. Gentleman precisely what I just said. In 2010, no one could find out who really owned a company in the United Kingdom. From June, we will be publishing a public register of beneficial ownership. What is more, HMRC could not find out who owned a company based in an overseas territory. As a consequence of the agreements we have reached this week, HMRC will be able to do exactly that. That is  evidence of the progress that has been made under this Government, and that was not the case under the previous Government.

Clive Efford: As my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) pointed out, we have had lots of honeyed words from the Government about how they are going to deal with this matter. However, is that not belied by the fact that they appointed someone as the executive chair of HMRC who thinks that taxation is “legalised extortion”? Does that not demonstrate the attitude that exists in this Administration?

David Gauke: It is unfortunate that the hon. Gentleman seeks to smear a public servant who has served Governments of—[Interruption.] Let me make this point. This is someone who has served Governments of both colours and with whom I have worked extensively over six years. He has been and is determined to do everything he can to ensure that our tax laws are properly enforced and deal with avoidance and evasion. I suggest to anyone who throws around one line from an article written in 1999 that they look at the entire thing, because his argument is about properly addressing tax avoidance by ensuring that we get the law right. It is unfortunate when accusations are thrown around about dedicated, impartial public servants.

John Glen: I pay tribute to my hon. Friend’s work over several years in dealing with some of these issues. Will he comment on the fact that this country now has the smallest gap on record between tax owed and tax paid? That is the real story about this Government’s efficiency in dealing with tax collection and the difficulties in the system.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is right. The reality is that the tax gap, as a percentage of tax revenues, has fallen considerably over the past six years, which is testimony to the effort put in by not only this Government, but HMRC. Bringing the tax gap down involves considerable challenges, such as tax evasion, tax avoidance, and inadvertent error on the part of taxpayers, which does happen from time to time as I am sure all hon. Members will recognise. We are determined to do what we can do improve and strengthen our systems. I am grateful for the opportunity today to make progress on that.

Robert Jenrick: Will the Minister emphasise the point about the tax gap? One of the most relevant measures is the tax gap specifically for those paying corporation tax. It was rising when the coalition Government came to power in 2010 and has fallen by almost 50% over the past six years, which is a major achievement.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is right that the tax gap in the context of large companies and tax avoidance as a whole have fallen strongly. There is of course always more that we can do, so let me take this opportunity to set out some of those steps.

Clive Efford: Will the Minister give way?

David Gauke: I will give way to the hon. Gentleman, but I stand by the point that he has sought, not for the first time, to attack an impartial, dedicated public servant, who cannot answer back, by selectively quoting an article written in 1999. I have set out to the House the context in which that article was written. It is clear that this is someone who believes that the law should be properly enforced and who has a record over many years of doing precisely that.

Clive Efford: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, but he accused me of smearing this individual when I was actually quoting him word for word. He went on to say that tax is legitimised
“only to the extent of the law.”
If the bar is set too low, fewer people will pay tax and more will be able to avoid it. My point—I stick by it—is that this Government’s attitude towards tax avoidance is lax and their words are more honeyed than their actions.

David Gauke: This is a Government that closes loopholes year in, year out, whose actions led to the OECD work on base erosion and profit shifting, that have given more powers to HMRC, that have seen a significant fall in the tax gap, particularly in the context of avoidance, and that have a proud record on dealing with tax avoidance, tax evasion and with all abuses in the tax system.

Huw Merriman: This Government, via HMRC, have raised £2 billion since 2010 from offshore tax evasion. Does that not demonstrate that this Government ensure that the tax that should be paid is paid?

David Gauke: That is absolutely right. I should make some progress with my speech, because it sets out what we have done and what we continue to do.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Gauke: I say that I should make some progress, but I look around the House and everybody is standing up. I will give way to the hon. Member for Foyle (Mark Durkan).

Mark Durkan: I thank the Financial Secretary for giving way. He referred to the Government’s record, but that record also includes changes to the controlled foreign companies rules, which in effect cost Exchequers here and, more importantly, in developing countries.

David Gauke: I do not accept that. The hon. Gentleman and I have debated the issue on several occasions. When we came to office in 2010, the controlled foreign companies regime was outdated and was driving businesses out of this country. Since our reforms, more businesses have located in the United Kingdom and more businesses have located their European headquarters here. The change has added to the UK’s attractiveness as a place to do business. As for developing countries, I have said to the hon. Gentleman before that the UK has been at the forefront of building the capacity of tax authorities in developing countries to ensure that they are able to collect the tax that is due under their laws.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Gauke: I will give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Gillingham and Rainham (Rehman Chishti), but I must then make some progress.

Rehman Chishti: I thank the Minister for giving way. I of course welcome all that the Government have done on tackling tax avoidance and evasion. He says that more could be done on tax avoidance, but does he accept that, following the comments of the former Labour Foreign Secretary and Lord Chancellor, who said that the Labour Government could have but did not take action on tax avoidance and the previous Labour Government’s deficit, the Government are playing catch up?

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is right to draw those remarks to the attention of the House. We have done a great deal on tax avoidance, but more can always be done and I will set out how we are doing that, working through the OECD.

David Anderson: Will the Minister give way? I want to help.

David Gauke: The hon. Gentleman says that he wants to help me, so I will give way and then really make some progress.

David Anderson: In the interests of the people listening to this debate, will the Minister provide, either today or by putting something in the Library, details of companies or schemes identified since 2012 that could be classed as either morally repugnant or morally wrong, terms that were used by the Prime Minister and the Chancellor in 2012 to describe such schemes? Has any work been done on that? Can we get a register so that we know who to look out for in future?

David Gauke: I think the hon. Gentleman is actually being helpful—not that I ever doubted that he would be. When there is artificial, contrived behaviour and when schemes are clearly contrary to the intentions of Parliament, we need to take strong action. We are also entitled to be critical of those involved in promoting such schemes. Indeed, we brought in a regime whereby we can name and shame the promoters of tax avoidance schemes that are clearly contrary to our intentions.

Maria Caulfield: Will the Minister give way?

David Gauke: As it is on that point, I will give way, but I am conscious that we are 10 minutes in and I am only on page 3 of my speech.

Maria Caulfield: I thank the Minister for giving way. If Opposition Members want to be helpful, they could speak to the unions. Unison paid no corporation tax in 2011 or 2012, despite owning £51.6 million of stocks and shares and generating an income of over £5 million.

David Gauke: It would be fair to say that I try to make it a rule not to comment on the individual tax affairs of taxpayers, but perhaps those who are happy to wade in on such debates should answer such questions.
HMRC is committed to exposing and acting on financial wrongdoing. Its specialist offshore unit is currently investigating more than 1,100 cases of offshore evasion around the world, with more than 90 individuals subject to current criminal investigation. The motion calls for greater HMRC resourcing. This shows precisely why at the summer Budget of 2015 we confirmed an extra £800 million to fund additional work to tackle evasion and non-compliance by 2020-21.
We have already heard quite a lot today about HMRC resources and headcount. I have to concede that there was a period when the numbers working in compliance and enforcement fell—that period was up to 2010. If we look at where the numbers were in 2010 compared with where they are today, we see that the enforcement and compliance numbers are higher than they were when the Prime Minister, the Chancellor and I took our respective positions—there has been an increase. I accept that much more of HMRC’s work on processing self-assessment forms, for example, has been automated and the number of staff working in that area has reduced. However, the number of people working in compliance and enforcement has increased over the past six years.

Several hon. Members: rose—

David Gauke: I want to make a few more points. Even before last week, HMRC had already received a great deal of information on offshore companies, including those in Panama and including Mossack Fonseca. This information comes from a wide range of sources and is currently the subject of intensive investigation. HMRC has asked the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists, the BBC and The Guardian to share the data they have received from last week’s leaks. Clearly, it is important to examine the data very closely, which is why we are providing new funding of up to £10 million for an operationally independent cross-agency taskforce to analyse the Panama papers and take action on any wrongdoing and regulatory breaches. The taskforce will include analysts, compliance specialists and investigators from across HMRC, the National Crime Agency, the Serious Fraud Office and the Financial Conduct Authority. Between them, those agencies will have some of the most sophisticated technology, experts and resources to tackle money laundering and tax evasion anywhere in the world. The taskforce will report to my right hon. Friends the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Home Secretary on the strategy for taking action, and we will update Parliament later this year. I stress that the taskforce will have total operational independence. If it finds people to prosecute, it will prosecute them. If it finds information about illegality, it can act on it. In addition, the independent FCA has written to financial firms asking them to declare their links to Mossack Fonseca. If the FCA were to find any evidence that firms have been breaking the rules, it, too, has strong powers to take punitive action.

Debbie Abrahams: The Minister mentioned last year’s Budget and the £800 million for non-compliance issues. However, I understand from his answer to a written question that only £266 million of that has been allocated specifically to address tax fraud. How much of that will be spent on dealing with tax evasion?

David Gauke: The vast majority of the additional money we have put into compliance, both the £800 million announced last year and the £1 billion announced in the last Parliament, is going to dealing with tax evasion. All of it is going into compliance, which is in the areas of dealing with tax evasion and tax avoidance, at its broadest points. I am happy to let the hon. Lady have details of the precise numbers and to write to her on that subject, but this money is going into compliance exactly to deal with these areas. We have taken this very seriously, substantial sums will be raised for us over the course of this Parliament and we are proud of our record on this.

Chris Stephens: First, on headcount, will the Financial Secretary confirm that there are 14,000 fewer staff in HMRC now than there were in 2010? Secondly, will he inform the House whether any HMRC staff currently have a compulsory redundancy notice?

David Gauke: I make no secret of the fact that HMRC is a smaller organisation than it was in 2010 in its headcount. That is because efficiency savings are capable of being found in an organisation that devotes a number of staff to processing pieces of paper when we are moving to a more digital world and we can make greater use of technology. On the area that is relevant to today’s discussion and is the concern of the House, the concern is to ensure that HMRC has the resources to deal with tax evasion and tax avoidance. In that area, headcount is not the be-all and end-all; it is about what we get out, not what we put in. As it happens, however, the numbers of people dealing with enforcement and compliance have gone up under this Government. That point sometimes seems to be missed from this debate.
In a globalised world, international action is clearly vital to stop cross-border tax avoidance, evasion and aggressive planning. The UK Government can be proud of having done more than any other country to stamp out these practices. On avoidance, we have already implemented the OECD recommendations for country-by-country reporting to improve transparency between business and tax authorities, and have advocated for public country-by-country reporting on a multilateral basis. The Commission’s proposals for public country-by-country reporting are a step in the right direction towards new international rules for greater public transparency. However, we need to consider carefully the details of the Commission’s proposal, including how the reporting is done and how the information is broken down.
On transparency in the context of tax evasion, which is a key point, the UK will be the first major country to publish a register of company beneficial ownership, free for anyone to access, allowing everyone to see who owns what company. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made it a personal priority to use our G8 presidency to set a new global standard of tax transparency. As a result of our G8 presidency, 129 jurisdictions have committed to implementing the international standard for exchange of tax information on request, and more than 95 jurisdictions have committed to implementing the new global common reporting standard on tax transparency. This is a huge breakthrough. I recall that six years ago no one believed that we would get to that position, and I am delighted that we have done so. This is a step change in transparency.

Robert Jenrick: To emphasise that point, none of our major international economic competitors has agreed so far to have a public register of beneficial ownership. In fact, the state of Delaware, in which 90% of United States public companies are listed, has said that it has no intention of implementing this. We really are leading the world and leading our major competitors.

David Gauke: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to raise that point, and I will address the subject of the public register in a moment. It is considerable progress to have got central registers at all. We have pressed for that, and I am pleased that overseas territories and Crown dependencies have agreed to sign up to it.

Callum McCaig: The Prime Minister has stated that the registers that the overseas territories will provide will be available to tax authorities here. However, as this debate has clearly highlighted, this is a global problem, so will those registers be shared with other tax enforcement agencies globally so that they can ensure that tax is not being avoided from other countries?

David Gauke: The hon. Gentleman raises an important point, and I think there is scope for going further on it. What we have agreed is to ensure that we have access to those central registers. That is clearly very helpful but I think more progress can be made in that area and it is something to return to in the future.
Panama is one of the very few financial centres that has not yet fully committed to these international standards. We are clear that it should do so, and we continue to press for Panama to join the club of responsible nations. Of course, there is more international work to be done, particularly on tackling money laundering. That is why we are hosting an anti-corruption summit in May, with the aim of encouraging consensus not just on exchanging information, but on publishing such information and putting it into the public domain, as we are doing in the UK. Once again, Britain is leading the world on transparency, accountability, and responsibility.

Stewart McDonald: rose—

David Gauke: There are a few more points that I want to make, if the hon. Gentleman will forgive me.
Let me address the subject of the UK’s Crown dependencies and overseas territories. Reform of the regimes of the overseas territories and Crown dependencies has been a key objective for the UK, and the reforms that we have secured have been considerable. All the UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories with financial centres are signed up as early adopters of the common reporting standard, reporting annually from 2017 in respect of data that have already been collected. The Crown dependencies and overseas territories will share information with the UK from this year, one year earlier than the rest of the world. All the UK Crown dependencies and overseas territories with a financial centre have committed to transparency on company ownership.
Last Monday the Prime Minister announced that our overseas territories and Crown dependencies have agreed that they will provide UK law enforcement and tax  agencies with full access to information on the beneficial ownership of companies. For the first time, UK police and law enforcement agencies will be able to see exactly who owns and controls every company incorporated in those territories. This is a major step forward in transparency, the result of the Government’s sustained work in this area.
It is right that we expect the overseas territories and Crown dependencies to meet international standards, and indeed they do. Yes, we want them to move towards a public central register. That is not yet the international standard. If, as the Leader of the Opposition suggests, every former colony that does not have a public register should be recolonised, where would we begin? Is he proposing that we invade Delaware? [Interruption.] Now we come to mention it, says the hon. Member for Wolverhampton South West (Rob Marris).
The reality is—and this is the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) was right to raise—that the UK is in favour of a public register. We are implementing a public register in June for the first time. We have never had one before. We want other countries to do that, but very few of our European Union colleagues do so. It is not the case that the US does it. We want to ensure that that becomes the new international standard, but Orders in Council condemning overseas territories for failing to do what most of our EU colleagues do not do would not be fair or effective. The approach that we have taken has brought the overseas territories and Crown dependencies a long way. I fear that the approach advocated by the Labour party would fail to work.

Paul Flynn: Will the Financial Secretary give way?

David Gauke: I will make some more progress. The hon. Gentleman has just arrived.
As well as leading international action, we have ensured that domestically, our regime is both tough and transparent. We have invested more than £1.8 billion in HMRC since 2010 to tackle evasion, avoidance and non-compliance. The £800 million extra funding that we announced in the summer Budget 2015 will enable HMRC to recover a cumulative £7.2 billion in tax over the next five years, and to triple the number of criminal investigations it can undertake into serious and complex tax crime. In the last Parliament, we made more than 40 changes to tax law, closing down existing loopholes and introducing major reforms to the UK taxation system, raising £12 billion.
Penalties increased, new offences created, loopholes closed, new measures introduced, more money raised—it does not stop there. In this Parliament, we have already announced a further 25 measures for legislation to tackle avoidance, evasion and aggressive tax planning. These measures are forecast to raise £16 billion by 2020-21. This week, we announced that we will bring before the House this year legislation to make it a crime where corporations fail to prevent their representatives from criminally facilitating tax evasion. This new corporate offence goes further than any other country has gone in holding corporations to account for criminal wrongdoing. It will apply to both UK and overseas corporations, and will set a new standard for corporate responsibility and accountability. I am sure that Members on all sides of the House will support any measures as they go through.
What a contrast to the 13 years of the Labour Government. This week, the Opposition ramp up the rhetoric, but it was not on our watch that private equity managers had a lower rate of tax than their cleaners. It was not on our watch that the wealthy could sidestep stamp duty. It was not on our watch that high earners could disguise their remuneration as loans that were never repaid. Those are just some of the loopholes left open by Labour—loopholes that we have been busy closing ever since.
Let me make one further point about the approach of the Labour party over the past week. Yes, taxes should be paid in accordance with the law and the intentions of Parliament, and we should take action against those who fail to do so. Those of us on the Government Benches certainly hold that view. But too often in the past week, Labour has appeared to be motivated by something else. That something else is hostility to the wealthy—not for dodging taxes, but just for being wealthy, for being successful, for earning money and for wanting to pass it on to their children. Those are things which millions of people aspire to do.
Thanks to the actions that this Conservative Government have taken domestically and overseas, we are revolutionising tax transparency and putting an end to offshore tax evasion. This is strong and firm action from a Government committed to ensuring that every penny of tax that is owed is paid. So I urge the House to reject the motion.

Stewart Hosie: May I make a number of small observations on what we have heard so far and gently say to the Minister, whom I like, that success is not measured merely in monetary terms? There are many, many successful people who will forgo stashing cash in the attic, the bank or the offshore tax haven.
On HMRC, we have no problem with efficiency or with organisations being fit for purpose. We have no qualms about genuine waste being eroded, but we look askance at 17 out of 18 tax offices being closed and only one being reopened, and the argument that somehow that will deliver more for substantially less.
The shadow Chancellor spoke about wealth inequality now rising to a level that we have not seen since the days of the Rockefellers or, as he said, the robber barons. I would not put the Prime Minister in the category of the super-rich, such as the Rockefellers. We know, however—the Prime Minister has been very open about this—that he bought shares, as he described it, in a trust or a fund as part of Blairmore Holdings. He sold them some years later. He did nothing illegal at all. That episode shone a very bright light in a very murky corner of offshore tax havens. One thing that struck me was that he bought the stock in 1997 and sold it in 2010. Those dates were familiar to me. It was the entire duration of Blair, Brown and new Labour. On the underlying issue, which I know the shadow Chancellor is genuinely concerned about, and on many of the points that the Minister made at the end of his speech, the Labour party did nothing for 13 years. I am glad that this is now on the agenda in a proper and cogent way.
My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Roger Mullin) made a number of telling points on this subject in his speech on the Second Reading of the Finance Bill on Monday. He said:
“you cannot build economic success on the back of social injustice.”—[Official Report, 11 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 115.]
He also said, quoting Adam Smith:
“No society can surely be flourishing and happy, of which the far greater part of the members are poor and miserable.”
He argued that creating such division does not bring progress, and he went on to describe how much of this division is characterised today by people in certain quarters being able to park large sums of money offshore, and the rest—the vast majority—being unable to do that.
My hon. Friend suggested that, according to Jason Hickel of the London School of Economics, tax havens hide one sixth of the world’s total private wealth—in excess of $20 trillion. Some estimates put that as high as $32 trillion, and CNN described it on Monday evening as about 6% of total global GDP. There are higher estimates. We can probably all agree that it is around $20 trillion, or 15 times UK GDP, parked offshore in tax havens—money and assets which very wealthy people and criminals can hide from the relevant tax authorities.
The revelations in the millions of documents in the Panama papers from Mossack Fonseca are but the tip of the iceberg. I am told that it is the fourth biggest law firm in Panama providing these services, which means there are three larger firms, and I presume that there are dozens, scores or hundreds of smaller firms doing the same. And it is not simply in Panama. Indeed, Panama does not even make it into the top 10 tax havens. Taken together—I do not think this situation has changed yet, notwithstanding the measures that the Government have announced—the UK and the overseas territories collectively are No. 1, outstripping even Switzerland by some margin, it is argued.
It is worth reminding ourselves that at a single address in the Cayman Islands, Ugland House, there are 19,000 registered businesses. I am certain that some of them will be legal, but many will not be. Many will be companies whose beneficial owners remain hidden from the tax authorities there, here or elsewhere. That means that income that should be the subject of taxation will go untaxed, to the detriment of public services here and elsewhere.
We have, in essence, an international system of finance that enables tax avoidance on an industrial scale, a system that hides from scrutiny the owners of vast wealth while the ordinary man, woman or business in the street does not have, and does not want, that luxury. They pay their fair share, and they simply want others to do the same. What makes it most unfair—I think this is why people are so angry—is that when assets or income are hidden and go untaxed, we all suffer as the resources we need for vital public services are reduced and squeezed.
It is also the case that much of the tax stashed in tax havens is looted from developing countries, so this is not simply an issue for the west. It is a matter of fundamental importance to those developing economies, which frankly are in even more need of the tax receipts that are effectively stolen from and then parked in tax havens around the world. That is why part of the solution must involve a global agreement on country-by-country reporting to ensure that tax authorities and others can follow the money.
The question from my hon. Friend the Member for Aberdeen South (Callum McCaig) was absolutely right. We are moving to having data shared between the  Crown dependencies and overseas territories and the law enforcement and tax authorities here. We think that should be public—there is absolutely no doubt about that—but it should also be shared elsewhere. If miscreants are identified by the Revenue or the police here, I hope that there will be a very swift phone call to the appropriate authorities elsewhere so that they, too, can follow the money.

Paul Flynn: Does the hon. Gentleman think it is significant that China has £44 billion invested in the Cayman Islands and £49 billion in the British Virgin Islands? Is not one of the reasons why the Government might not want to act against these tax havens because they are ingratiating themselves with the Chinese, who are busy destroying our steel industry?

Stewart Hosie: I suspect that the Chinese authorities are interested in that £93 billion just as much as we are, because I suspect that much of it is not there—how can I put this gently?—officially. They have as big a problem with money being fleeced from their system as we and other countries have with ours.
Another issue raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, and by my hon. Friend the Member for East Lothian (George Kerevan), is the question of where the money actually is and how it is set to work for its beneficiaries. As we know, cash funds do not actually sit in the Cayman Islands or the Bahamas. One of the biggest centres for the cash is London, and we can see where some of that money is spent. For example, hundreds, if not thousands, of rather expensive properties in London have been bought by persons unknown. We have therefore called for radical reform to address tax avoidance, outright evasion and criminality and to deliver fairness across the board so that the very wealthy pay the tax that is due in precisely the same way as those on more modest earnings.
The starting point for paying tax in this country is the Revenue knowing precisely who owns what assets and what income is derived from them. In short, that means a public register of beneficial ownership of companies, and not just in the UK, but for the Crown dependencies and the overseas territories as well, precisely so that nobody can hide assets or incomes through an opaque structure of a company registered in an overseas territory, registered by a Panamanian lawyer while the money comes swiftly to a bank account in London and is parked in a multi-million pound mansion in Mayfair through an anonymous shell company.
That also means taking serious action on trusts. The argument that the Prime Minister used was that he would not have got the agreement had trusts been included. He argued—possibly correctly historically—that those trusts were set up in order to allow sophisticated investors to invest in dollar-denominated stock. But times have changed. I took a cursory look at the stock exchange website this morning. On its “frequently asked questions” page, I saw the following question: “Can a company have its securities traded in currencies other than sterling, for example euros and dollars?” The answer was, “Yes, your shares can be denominated and traded in any freely available currency you choose.” Indeed, the stock exchange launched a Masala rupee-denominated bond last week. The old arguments that these structures are required for non-sterling trades or  investment are now simply wrong. As my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath put it, even if the Prime Minister was right some years ago, he is wrong now and public opinion has changed dramatically.
That brings me to what else the Prime Minister said on Monday. He said that he has published all the information on his tax returns for the past six years. He has provided details about money inherited and given to him by his family. He has published other sources of income and his salary. He dealt specifically with the shares that he and his wife held in a unit trust called Blairmore Holdings, set up by his late father. That, from our point of view, was precisely the right thing to do. However, in a sense, all of that is irrelevant because it did not actually address the fundamental issue of individuals holding assets through overseas shell companies and being able to hide them and their income from the tax man.
Also, in describing the actions that the Government are taking to deal with tax evasion, aggressive tax avoidance and international corruption more broadly, the Prime Minister said that they have put an end to rich homeowners getting away without paying stamp duty because their houses are enveloped within companies. He said that they had made 40 changes to close loopholes, and they have sought agreement on global standards for the automatic exchange of information, and in June this year, as the Minister has pointed out, the UK will become the first country in the G20 to have a public register of beneficial ownership so that everyone can see who really owns and controls each company. We recognise that there has also been work on base erosion and profit shifting.
All of that is to be welcomed. What we are saying is that we need to go further. It will simply not be enough for the police and the tax authorities to see beneficial ownership of companies registered in Crown dependencies; it must be public, so that the citizens of those countries and ours can see who precisely owns and benefits from what. Also, while we welcome the publication of beneficial ownership of companies in the UK, I ask the Government to ensure that sufficient resources are now dedicated to HMRC so that it can forensically scrutinise the sources of income to ensure that they are legal and that the tax due is paid. Of course, as I said earlier, the Government must also pass on to other authorities the details of any miscreants suspected of looting cash from other countries.
I am delighted that this subject is now under real scrutiny. I am also delighted that we have gone wider than the parochial. Oxfam has pointed out how significant this is in its report “Ending the Era of Tax Havens”. It gives encouragement to the Government, stating:
“The UK is especially well placed to show leadership here because it controls or directly influences by far the largest network of tax havens in the world. This network, encompassing the UK’s Crown Dependencies and Overseas Territories and centred on the City of London, is estimated to account for nearly a quarter of global financial services provided to nonresidents within a jurisdiction. Taken together, this UK entity would sit at the top of the ranking in the Tax Justice Network’s Financial Secrecy Index”.
That is not something we should be proud of. However, Oxfam goes on to talk about the opportunity the Government have, saying that success in tackling corruption and tax evasion could be transformative not just in terms of our revenue, but in terms of the fight against global poverty and inequality, which, for the SNP, is just as important.
I will end by saying one thing to the Government: the cat is out of the bag. This is not just about Mossack Fonseca; this is the tip of the iceberg. The public will not allow this matter to be quietly swept under the carpet again.

Kevin Foster: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie). Although there are probably some things we would disagree on, there are a couple of issues on which we do agree. One is that it is welcome that we are having this debate on the Floor of the House today. The other is the fear that the next tax haven to be listed—this time it would affect ordinary working people—might be England if the Scottish Labour party gets its way after the elections this May and makes tax rates for working people higher there than they are south of the border.
It is always good, as a member of the Public Accounts Committee, to be discussing on the Floor of the House how we get in the tax that is owed. During Prime Minister’s Question Time, I think I heard the Leader of the Opposition refer to tax as partly a donation. I can understand why he said that, but let us be clear: a donation is something people voluntarily give to a charity, as I do out of my salary; a tax is a legal requirement to pay something—it is not a donation or an act of charity.
As a member of the Committee, I sat on our recent inquiry into Google, which is perhaps one of the cases that has helped to prompt the debate on this issue over the last few months. We focused a lot on some of the offshore locations, but we also had references to things such as the “double Irish” and the “Dutch sandwich”, which helped to reduce the company’s tax liability. Neither of those relates to offshore territories; they both involve jurisdictions that are members of the EU. It is therefore important that, as we work across the world to try to deal with tax evasion and avoidance, we make sure that other nation states give these issues the attention they deserve. [Interruption.]

Natascha Engel: Order. I am sorry to disturb the hon. Gentleman, but there is quite a lot of chattering going on, and I am finding it quite difficult to hear him.

Kevin Foster: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker.
In its report, the Committee was clear that HMRC should try to lead a debate about openness and tax rules. In that instance, the issue was revenues and the discussion of information with HMRC. It is easy to grandstand in such debates, but it is important to have not a knee-jerk reaction, but a considered debate about what information is available publicly, because there cannot just be specific rules for individual companies. If we change our general principle of not discussing individual taxpayer data, there are obviously some pitfalls to that, as well as some potential benefits, as we see when we look at deals such as the one with Google. However, the Committee felt that HMRC could lead a debate on that.
The report summarises some of the issues involved in judging whether the Google deal was the best deal that could have been done. It is worth noting, however, that the debate was based on previous tax rules, not today’s tax rules; effectively, we were having a debate about things as they existed some years ago—in some cases,  11 years back, when many Members sitting here today were not actually in the House—and about laws that have, in many cases, changed.
What came out of the Committee’s discussion is that HMRC’s performance is being looked at more widely, and the Committee regularly looks at it. It is encouraging to see some of the figures that have been published on the reduction of the tax gap—not least the corporation tax gap, which has gone from 14% to 7%. That is welcome. Yes, there is more we can do to drive down that 7%, but it is far better to be talking about 7% than 14%.
As has been referred to in the debate, the tax haven where a hedge fund manager could pay as low a tax rate as the person who cleaned their office was the UK six years ago. I have always felt that tackling that was one of the best things done under the coalition Government, because it seemed innately unfair that someone sitting within a few miles of this building could use capital gains tax rules to pay a small rate on a substantial income—indeed, a lower rate than a person earning the minimum wage for cleaning their office.
Having had discussions with Anguilla’s Public Accounts Committee recently, I welcome a number of things about HMRC’s having the ability to get information from, and share information with, the Crown dependencies. I agree with the hon. Member for Dundee East that we should be as diligent in handing information to tax authorities in developing countries via such information-sharing arrangements as we are in using information to enforce our own tax system. I suspect there will always be a debate about exactly what information we share with countries with more repressive regimes, but where the line is purely about avoiding taxation, we should be prepared to co-operate, provided that there are assurances about the standards that will be applied afterwards as part of investigations under the relevant nation’s criminal justice system.
In terms of how the Government and the UK engage with these authorities, it is worth bearing in mind that some of the regulations involved are very complex. There is perhaps a debate to be had about the fact that we currently appoint governors, who effectively act as the Head of State, for three years, with their term being extendable to four. There is perhaps a debate to be had with Foreign Office colleagues about whether it would make more sense to have a longer appointment, to allow governors to build a relationship with the authorities in a country; to build a knowledge of the system there; and to be able to engage more, and to give difficult messages, on behalf of the UK, in a way that a three-year term perhaps does not allow.
We should be clear that being a governor is not about going round in a feathered hat being saluted by everyone; it should be about being part of building a strong and lasting bond between the UK and territories that look to us for support, particularly in the realm of defence and overseas development. We should have people who engage with territories very strongly and who build up their governance systems, but who also have a deep knowledge of those territories and a deep relationship with them. We can then have the tougher discussions we need to have about areas where those territories are sovereign, but where their decisions have a clear impact on us as the home nation.
That said, I welcome the agreements we have managed to sign. I recognise that this is a global problem. Panama is one of the few countries not to have signed up to some of the international agreements, and one of the key issues is what further steps we take against nations that do not do that. Again, however, that should be part of a proper global debate, and we should not pick off individual jurisdictions. If we do that, people will simply find the next jurisdiction that is not honouring transparency. This needs to be a slightly wider debate than just picking on individual circumstances or an individual issue.
Likewise, we need a debate so that there is clarity, for example, about which types of investment many people use—perfectly legitimately and perfectly lawfully—in this country. We have heard of trade unions, pension funds and councils that use unit trusts and that pay their taxes here. At the same time, however, we have to open the envelope on shell companies that are basically just being used to hide who actually owns something, so that we can have that information and ensure that HMRC can get the tax it is due.
I was slightly disappointed that the opening of the debate seemed to focus more on a party political attack than on a measured discussion of how we ensure that the taxes legislated for by this Parliament are collected so that they can be spent by this Parliament. In reading the motion, I thought it was strange that there was no reference to the recent Public Accounts Committee report on the Google taxation deal. Likewise, I was disappointed that there was no reference to the tax transparency Bill—to give it a rather snappier title than its official one—introduced by a former Cabinet Minister, who is now a Labour Back Bencher. Instead, the motion seems like a party political policy document, which means it is not something I feel inclined to support.
This debate is welcome. It is safe to say that all of us recognise that there is more work to be done to capture those revenues that escape all taxation in all jurisdictions, and the UK can also play a role in building the capability of developing nations to crack down on tax avoidance that costs them even more than us. This is ultimately about ensuring that those tax rates that are set here and that we believe are fair are paid. That is the nub of this debate and it must be the focus of future work.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. Before I call the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), I should say that 11 Members wish to speak and I want to start the wind-ups at about 3.30 pm. If speakers take about eight minutes or less, everybody will get in.

Catherine McKinnell: As the co-founder and chair of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to today’s debate.
The issues under discussion are, rightly, very high on the public agenda, and a great number of my constituents have contacted me to share their concerns. They, like many others, have a strong sense of both the real and the perceived injustice in our system, whereby the vast  majority of people in this country play by the same rules and have very little choice about the contribution they make to the public purse. This is not about envy or anger at wealth, whether it be earned or inherited; it is about the fact that those at the top end of the income scale seem to play by an entirely different set of rules. That, understandably, makes people angry, and the Government must take genuine steps to level the playing field and regain the public’s trust.
One of the assertions that has been made in representations to me is that the solutions to the problem are easy. Although I do not necessarily subscribe to that view, I do think that there are a few relatively simple steps that the Government could take to make a significant difference. Those steps would bring about much greater transparency about the ownership of individual and company assets and wealth, and enable a very clear view of who the beneficiaries are of investments and funds, whether they are held here in the UK or in offshore trusts and accounts. It is essential to deal properly not only with aggressive tax avoidance that Parliament never intended to be pursued, but with tax evasion and other criminal activity, such as fraud and corruption. Too often, both issues go hand in hand.
In his statement on the Panama papers on Monday, the Prime Minister acknowledged:
“Under current legislation it is difficult to prosecute a company that assists with tax evasion”.—[Official Report, 11 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 26.]
He is absolutely correct. In fact, the challenge is understated, and I will briefly explain why. At present, under UK law, in order to hold a company criminally liable, prosecutors must identify an individual sufficiently senior within the organisation—usually at board level—as its “controlling mind” with knowledge of the offence. In an increasingly globalised world where multinational organisations, which have very complicated structures and management arrangements, are the norm, that sets an extremely high bar for prosecutors to cross. By contrast, in the US a company can be held vicariously liable in criminal law for the actions of its employees undertaken in the course of their employment.
The Government seemed to acknowledge that inadequacy in UK law and included proposals in their 2015 manifesto to introduce corporate criminal liability for economic offences. Yet by September 2015 those proposals were quietly dropped, a fact that came to light only in response to a written parliamentary answer. The grounds stated by the Minister who gave that answer were that
“there is little evidence of economic crime going unpunished.”
That was, frankly, a ridiculous assertion, and I hope that the Panama papers have finally put that notion to bed.
It is clearly unacceptable that, here in the UK, prosecutors of economic crime—tax evasion, corruption and fraud—are effectively operating with one hand tied behind their backs. Indeed, David Green, the director of the Serious Fraud Office—the law enforcement agency tasked with prosecuting the most serious and complex economic crimes—has been clear for some time about the inadequacy of our law. As he pointed out in an interview with the Evening Standard in January, the identification principle
“is difficult because inevitably the email trail tends to dry up at middle management and evidentially it is hard to prove.”
I put that point to the Prime Minister on Monday, and I was glad to hear him commit to going away and looking at the proposals. I hope that Ministers are listening carefully to this debate and that those at the Ministry of Justice in particular will report back to him as a matter of urgency. The proposal is to extend the application of the section 7 offence—which I will explain—not only to tax evasion, but to all economic crime.
This is the nub of the issue. As the Prime Minister announced on Monday—indeed, he had announced it previously, but no follow-up action has been taken as yet—the Government intend to legislate so that corporates can be held criminally liable for failing to prevent the facilitation of tax evasion. That is an acceptance that the current corporate liability framework, which applies to all economic crimes, does not work.
The Government propose to do that by creating an offence modelled on section 7 of the Bribery Act 2010, introduced by the last Labour Government, that holds a company liable if it fails to take “adequate steps” to prevent bribery by its employees. In other words, it puts the onus on companies to ensure that proper compliance procedures are in place and holds them criminally liable if they do not do so. That model, which already applies to the offence of bribery, will apply to tax evasion under the Government’s proposals.
Why stop at tax evasion? Why not extend the provision to cover failure to prevent other crimes, such as fraud or money laundering, as promised in the Conservative party’s 2015 manifesto? The director of the Serious Fraud Office has suggested that that is a workable solution. Back in 2013, he highlighted the benefits:
“Such an approach would merely add a criminal sanction to existing obligations; it would assist in the reform of poor corporate culture which contributed to the crash; it would underpin the recovery by encouraging clean and stable markets; it would increase investor confidence, assist in more rapid prosecutions and dovetail well with deferred prosecution agreements.”

Jim Cunningham: My hon. Friend mentioned earlier the situation in America. None of the bankers in this country was held to account for the crash, but a number of those in America were. Does she agree that something should be done about that?

Catherine McKinnell: Absolutely. My hon. Friend raises a very important point. The banks in America have paid significant fines as a result of their behaviour ahead of the crash, but it has been significantly more difficult to ensure that justice is done here. That is the very reason why the issue needs to be addressed. The solution is very simple and workable. The Government already intend to legislate on tax evasion, so it would simply be a case of expanding the number of offences to which the legislation applies.
I strongly urge the Government to look closely at part 2 of schedule 17 to the Crime and Courts Act 2013. It sets out a useful list of offences, covering all manner of fraudulent and corrupt offences—from false accounting and forgery, to fraudulent trading, bribery and money laundering—that the Government’s proposed new offence could equally apply to. The work is all done. The ducks are lined up; the Government just need to implement the change.
The revelations in the Panama papers represent a pivotal moment that the Government must not squander. The Panama papers have not just highlighted issues  relating to tax evasion and, indeed, avoidance, but raised even greater questions about illicit financial flows, laundered money and the proceeds of crime, and about how companies exploit tax havens and secretive jurisdictions to facilitate that. Ahead of next month’s anti-corruption summit the Government should send out to the rest of the world the clearest of messages that the UK is serious about tackling economic crime in all of its forms, and its facilitation. I urge the Government to take the opportunity to take this important step to arm our law enforcement agencies and courts with the ability properly to hold companies to account.

James Cartlidge: It is a pleasure to speak in this debate and to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell). She made an excellent speech, at the start of which she summarised very well the feeling of public anger about an elite who seem to live by rules different from those that apply to the average member of society. I agree with her.
I want to speak along the same lines as the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who has just left the room, and talk about the underlying issues. Why is there such public anger about this issue? Tax avoidance and tax evasion have been going on for hundreds of years. Smuggling was tax evasion. When people filled in their windows to avoid the window tax, that was tax avoidance. Why has there recently been a crescendo of public anger? It cannot be simply because the Panama papers have been in the press. I argue that it is caused by underlying economics and the fissures that emerged in our society after the great credit crunch in 2008.

David Anderson: The hon. Gentleman might want to consider the fact that the poor people of the country are lectured constantly by the Government, who keep telling them that we are all in this together. Quite clearly, we are not.

James Cartlidge: We have a record low in the number of workless households. Worklessness is the single biggest cause of poverty. The Government have a very strong record on dealing with poverty, and I will come on to that.

Debbie Abrahams: It is generous of the hon. Gentleman to give way, but I have to challenge him on his last point. There are more people in work who are in poverty than ever before.

James Cartlidge: I simply do not agree with that. I want to start by focusing on the action that has been taken, because I do not think that the anger out there is caused by a lack of action.

Kevin Foster: Will my hon. Friend give way?

James Cartlidge: May I just make one point first, although it is lovely to have so popular a speech and so many interventions? On the action we have taken, as my hon. Friends the Members for Torbay (Kevin Foster) and for Newark (Robert Jenrick) have said, there has  been a 50% fall in the corporation tax gap. I am sure that that is the sort of point on which my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay wants to support me.

Kevin Foster: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. He has already been very generous with interventions. Does he agree that one of the things that really used to anger people was that an office cleaner could be paying a higher rate of tax than a hedge fund manager who worked in the same office? That was happening not in a tax haven, but here in the UK, and it is right that it was tackled.

James Cartlidge: That is an excellent point. It was a fundamental injustice, and we dealt with it. In the latest Budget, we announced a series of measures to tackle tax avoidance on matters such as hybrid mismatch, VAT evasion through online sales and the general anti-abuse rule. We will introduce a new penalty of 60% of tax due in all GAAR cases that are successfully tackled. We have brought in a long list of measures on matters such as serial tax avoidance and offshore avoidance.
On the broader point about the wider economics, I founded a small business in 2004—a mortgage broker specialising in the shared ownership sector—and it was obvious to me in the build-up to 2008 what was coming down the track. I believe that the then Government were trying to tackle inequality through debt. In those days, two potential homebuyers, one of whom was relatively wealthy and well educated, and the other of whom had less good skills and was less able to command such a salary, could both obtain similar levels of mortgage through the extraordinary measures that existed at the time, such as self-certified and sub-prime mortgages. We all know where that led.
In terms of public debt, the then Government’s main measure to deal with inequality was tax credits, which led to a £30 billion increase in in-work benefits. We paid for that increase in benefit spending on the national overdraft at a time when the country was doing pretty well and the world economy was relatively strong.

Mark Tami: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify something? He seemed to be saying that less intelligent people should not be allowed to have mortgages. Is that what he was saying?

James Cartlidge: I think that the hon. Gentleman should withdraw that remark. I find that genuinely offensive. What I said was that the rules were very lax, and self-certification meant that someone on a low salary could get a very large mortgage, just like someone who earned a large amount. That is exactly the point that I was making. We all know that that led to a huge crash in 2008.
We have one fundamental question to answer. How, in the current economic context, do we go about trying to deliver a fairer economy, which we all want, where more people share in the growth that we have been able to deliver? We need strong measures to counter tax avoidance. We need the public to feel as though we are all in this together, and that we are all paying our fair share.

Alex Chalk: On the point about everyone paying their way, does my hon. Friend welcome the fact that under this Government, the top 1% of  earners are paying 28% of tax, which is a far higher percentage than under the Labour Government? [Interruption.]

James Cartlidge: There are shouts from Labour Members, because I made that point earlier, but it is worth repeating. I am delighted that my hon. Friend made it, because it is so strong.

Callum McCaig: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

James Cartlidge: I am very popular today.

Callum McCaig: The hon. Gentleman is exceptionally popular today. The point about the richest 1% paying the largest amount of tax has been baffed about a number of times today as though it is some sign of virtue. It is, in fact, a sign of the gross inequality that exists in the country, which needs to be addressed.

James Cartlidge: It is a sign that the rich are paying more tax. How does that make society more unequal?
Let me talk about the measures that we should be pursuing. Yes, we should be cracking down on aggressive tax avoidance, but if we are to help people across society to have a share, we need measures such as the national living wage, which was introduced on 1 April by a Conservative one nation Government. There are those who say that the national living wage is not generous enough. They have obviously not been reading The Guardian, which recently used The Economist’s Big Mac index to prove that the national living wage is more generous than the minimum wage in any other European country except Luxembourg. Only in Luxembourg can someone buy more burgers with the minimum wage than they can with the national living wage in this country. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) asked what this had to do with tax avoidance. The underlying issue is fairness. It is about how we achieve an economy in which there is a widespread sense that everyone has opportunity and the chance to earn a decent wage.
We are delivering that in circumstances far more adverse than those that faced the Government before 2010. We have had a small majority and the first coalition since the second world war. We have had the biggest deficit since the second world war—11.5% of GDP—which we have cut by two thirds. In that context, it is difficult to grow our way out of such a problem and deliver fairness. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Glasgow South keeps chuntering, but he is not adding a great deal to the debate.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is talking about fairness and about some of the challenges that we faced with the deficit that we inherited. Is he not proud that in those circumstances, not only have we shifted income tax from the lowest paid to the highest paid, but we have helped small businesses? Through the reforms to business rates, we will take many smaller businesses out of business rates altogether while making multinationals pay more.

James Cartlidge: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to mention small businesses. I used to say to people that I ran a small business, but measured by the amount of  corporation tax we paid, we were bigger than Google. The fact is that those who run small businesses feel as though they have to comply. They cannot afford expensive lawyers. I agree with the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North about the sense that there is an elite who live by different rules. We have to deal with that, but we must not run away from the key point—my concluding point—with which my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary also concluded, namely that when we talk about transparency, the transparency that really matters to the public is about our ideals and our beliefs.
What do we really believe? I fundamentally believe in the free market. I believe in capitalism. I believe in individuals getting out there and using their creativity to earn their way in the world. We cannot go back to paying our way through debt and unsustainable public finances. In those circumstances, we need to maximise the tax that we get, but we also need to maximise the investment into the country from companies that we have heard the Labour Front Benchers chastise. Those big professional firms in London are massive employers in this country. We need to expand our exports from the services sector. Basically, we need a positive, free enterprise agenda with a fair sense that companies and individuals are paying their fair share, which does not denigrate the free market but creates sustainable growth to deliver prosperity for all.

Natascha Engel: Order. I have now to announce the result of a deferred Division on the question relating to employment agencies etc. The Ayes were 307 and the Noes were 241, so the Ayes have it.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Natascha Engel: Everybody has been speaking for just over 10 minutes, rather than eight minutes, which is the informal guide. We now need to keep to about seven minutes or less, if we want to get everybody in.

Debbie Abrahams: What has been highlighted by the publication of the so-called Panama papers is that we do not have a fair tax system. We are not all in it together, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said so eloquently. Those exposed by this scandal have knowingly exploited tax avoidance measures for their own financial gain. While it is not technically illegal, aggressive tax avoidance has been argued to be against the spirit and intention of the law and of the will of this House. What is really shocking is that Heads of Government are involved, including our own Prime Minister, and that poses fundamental questions about politics and politicians. Once again, it threatens public confidence and trust in politics and politicians. These people are meant to be providing leadership to our citizens, and such involvement calls into question their attitudes and values, as well as their motives for seeking public office.

Dawn Butler: Does my hon. Friend think the comments that have been made—for instance, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) said, “If you are not wealthy, you are a low achiever”—have added to the public’s distrust of politicians in this place?

Debbie Abrahams: Such a comment adds to the dissatisfaction with politics and politicians as a whole, as I have said. I thought it was a very insulting statement.
As Members on both sides of the House have already said, the Panama papers provide more evidence of the existence of a powerful and indifferent elite, for whom the accumulation of personal wealth at the expense of their fellow citizens is paramount. The evasion and avoidance of tax means that less money is collected by the Exchequer for our pensioners, disabled people and the vulnerable, as well as for doctors, nurses, teachers and all the other public servants funded by public money. Fundamentally, dodging paying a fair share of tax is contributing to growing inequality in this country and across the world, and tax havens are at the heart of this.
Many Members will have seen Oxfam’s report last month. It says the UK heads the world’s biggest financial secrecy network, which spans its Crown dependencies and overseas territories, and is centred on the City of London. Collectively, it is estimated to account for nearly a quarter of global financial services provided to non-residents within any given jurisdiction. The UK takes prime position out of all jurisdictions across the world in the Tax Justice Network’s financial secrecy index, which is hardly something we should be proud of.
The National Audit Office has estimated that the tax gap is £34 billion a year, which is £1 billion more than in 2009. That is equivalent to a third of the NHS’s national budget. About half of the tax gap is accounted for by tax fraud, which includes tax evasion, criminal activity and the hidden or grey economy. When we consider the cuts proposed in last month’s Budget in relation to the personal independent payment for disabled people, we can see that figure for half of the tax gap would pay the whole annual budget for people on the disability living allowance and PIP.
HMRC’s compliance units, now merged into the fraud investigation service, tackle all aspects of non-compliance. According to the NAO, they do not record how much of the revenue they successfully recover relates to tax evasion, but the NAO estimates that the figure is about 30%. One of the issues that HMRC has to face is the need to balance what it can get in quickly, as low-hanging fruit, from low-risk, low-visibility and lower-gain operations with what it can get in from the high-risk, high-visibility and higher-gain and more complex criminal cases. This is where political leadership comes in. Such leadership has been seriously absent, as I shall mention later.
In spite of the 2013 G8 commitment to a common reporting standard at a global level, the Government have dragged their feet and obfuscated on comprehensive action on such measures. I welcome what the Government have proposed this week, but why—six years later—is that happening now? As I asked in an intervention, I would be grateful to the Financial Secretary if he responded on how much of the £266 million that has been specifically allocated to address tax fraud is to deal with tax evasion.
HMRC now has additional staff, with 670 new staff acting on tax evasion, but why were nearly 6,000 HMRC staff let go between 2013 and 2015? Has the 10% reduction in the number of HMRC staff since 2008 actually affected the collection of the moneys owed because of tax evasion?
As I say, I welcome the additional measures that have been taken, but the absolute outrage at this is clear from my mailbox, which I am sure is the same for other Members. There is palpable public anger. My hon. Friend the Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) summed it up perfectly: when people are really struggling, it is shocking to see such absolute abuse by a tiny minority.
We need to look at this in the context of the Government’s other benefits and tax measures. According to the Institute for Fiscal Studies, the regressive Budgets during the past six years have left people on low and middle incomes proportionately worse off. That is a result of the tax and social security measures. Projections for the next five years show that there will be increasing poverty and inequalities. All of that compounds the anger that people are feeling. In such a context, the vast accumulation of wealth by the wealthiest is very shocking. In the past 15 years, those in the top 1% have increased their wealth by 79%, which is £3.7 million per person, while someone in the bottom 10% has seen a rise of just 45%, which is £1,600 per person.
In addition to the Prime Minister’s admission in his statement last week that he had benefited from an investment in an offshore trust based in a tax haven, he intervened in 2013 to oppose the beneficiaries of offshore trusts being named in proposed EU money laundering rules. This is what I mean by the need for political leadership. There has been an absence of political leadership, contrary to what can be deemed as fair. I am conscious of the time, so I will not pursue that point. Our proposals will make a real difference, and I hope that Members will look at them.

Phillip Lee: Forgive me for not being in the Chamber at the start of the debate, Madam Deputy Speaker. I was not here because I had absolutely no intention of speaking. However, when I listened to the shadow Chancellor’s speech, I found myself understanding his frustrations and understanding the points he made. I guess the problem is that his solution seems to be some sort of socialist utopia, which I do not think will work. I see no example in history of its doing so. I have, however, been forced to consider what a viable solution to this state of affairs might be.
Understandably, as many colleagues have already illustrated ably in their speeches, the general public are angry and frustrated. There is a palpable sense that there has been a breakdown in trust not only in us in this Chamber, but in systems of government, whether it is the tax system or, given the latest dreadful case in Burton, the social work system. Across the board, the public are deeply mistrustful, and increasingly so, as well as deeply cynical. That is understandable, because this is not the only tax scandal. We have had Google and many others, including in relation to corporation tax.
I can understand why the average man and woman in the street is thinking, “If it is good for me, why is it not good for them?” The response should not be hypocrisy and it certainly should not be envy; it should be to ask what we can practically do in the globalised economy we all inhabit. I readily admit that there are failings in our current capitalist model, and I rarely see contributions from people who recognise that or, indeed, who have  thought about what might replace it. A notable exception is my hon. Friend the Member for Hereford and South Herefordshire (Jesse Norman).

Jim Cunningham: The hon. Gentleman mentioned public anger. Measures against the recession have been going on for about six years. The public are weary of that, just as the public in America are weary of what is happening there. The public feel aggrieved at us because the recession and the measures to deal with it have been too harsh and have gone on for too long. That is one reason why people feel that they bear the biggest part of the burden.

Phillip Lee: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his contribution, but the political and philosophical point in it is that he does not believe that reducing the size of the state is necessarily in the interests of the majority. I do, and that is where we diverge, but the hon. Gentleman is right that there is a sense that the middle are carrying the burden and the very rich are not. However, all these things that we have been discussing, about which I have no knowledge—I wish I had money in trusts, offshore or elsewhere—are legal. If something is legal, I believe that it is legitimate. To those who believe that there is a moral component to paying tax, I say, “Get real.”
We probably need to look at the system first. Earlier, I referred to the corporation tax scandal, Google and the like. I know that the Government have made significant progress on reducing corporation tax, but corporation tax is out of date in a globalised economy. Let us just scrap it. We either make a decision not to spend £42 billion, or we move to a form of taxation that is not so easily avoidable, be it employee taxation, a sales tax or a property tax. However, the perpetuation of corporation tax in the world I see is plainly nonsense.
On the point about London property ownership, it is all about avoiding stamp duty. Scrap stamp duty. We should either not spend the £7 billion or find another way of levying the tax. Perhaps people should be taxed for ownership on an ongoing basis. Perhaps council taxes should be increased. I do not know—one can choose. However, corporation tax and stamp duty are clearly not fit for purpose and are easily avoidable.
The other challenge is intergenerational inequity. Significant sums of money are tied up in particular generations. Much has been said about the Prime Minister’s inheritance tax arrangements, which are totally to be expected—anybody with any wealth will mitigate inheritance tax. Who in that position would not? Let us not be hypocrites. The problem is that significant wealth is tied up in a particular generation, who were born post war. How will we facilitate the transfer of that wealth fairly and equitably? Answers on a postcard, please. At the moment, we do not have a system that works, and we need one.
I move on to transparency and the need for simplification. I am attracted to the Scandinavian—Norwegian and Swedish—model of publishing tax and wealth online. I support that; I have absolutely nothing—as far as I am aware—to hide. When I mention that to Conservative colleagues in particular, they worry about privacy. If that is founded—and those arguments are strong—the Prime Minister should not have published his tax returns, and nobody else should do so. It should be all or nothing. Each and every one of us in the Chamber, and  indeed those watching in the Public Gallery, has a share in our democracy and in our Government functioning. For that share to be valued, we must all trust that it is legitimate and fair and that everyone is playing by the rules. I am therefore drawn to the Norwegian model, with all the necessary clarifications of legitimate application.

James Cartlidge: Which Norwegian model? There is one to do with the sex trade, there is another to do with negotiations for the referendum—is my hon. Friend talking about the tax one?

Phillip Lee: Of course I am talking about the tax system. There have been some concerns about it, to do with extortion and potential for kidnapping the very wealthy. However, if the system is applied with a log in and all the necessary things that need to be put in place, I do not see a problem with it. In the first couple of years, everyone will be interested—twitchy curtains—in what everyone else is earning, but after that, things will settle down.
I have contributed today, and I feel strongly about this because if we do not have trust, not just in us, but in this establishment and in Government, we cannot achieve much. The challenges that the country faces with the long-term sustainability of health and welfare, particularly pensions, mean that there will be some difficult decisions for whoever is in power. For them to be implemented, we must be trusted. Everything that we do here should be about that. That is why I think that our priorities should be transparency, simplification and scrapping taxes that have long been out of date.

Kwasi Kwarteng: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his interesting speech. Does he believe that tax transparency will automatically lead to greater trust among the electorate? I feel that the electorate has reached the point where transparency may not necessarily lead to greater trust.

Phillip Lee: I agree with my hon. Friend that initially no, it would not. However, in time, once the system beds down, it will. The richest man in Norway, who published all his wealth and income, is now extremely popular because it turns out that he is a great philanthropist. People do not have a problem with others being successful. I certainly do not detect that in the British public. However, I think that there is a suspicion that something underhand is going on in some quarters and, as the Prime Minister says, transparency is the best disinfectant.
We need to act because trust matters. Without trust, we cannot implement what is necessary, whatever the policies are. Anything that the Government can do to encourage the public to trust in the system and in this institution will get my support.

Paul Flynn: I am happy to start on a note of consensus with the hon. Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) and my hon. Friend the Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) that this is all about trust. The public have reacted so fiercely against recent events because there is a collapse of trust in us. The expenses scandal was a screaming nightmare, and public trust reached rock bottom. It is now subterranean—it has got worse. An examination of our  standards in this House is currently taking place, and I urge every hon. Member to contribute to it. Democracy itself—the political system—is under threat.
The country is rightly angry about the unfairness in the system. The other day in the House, we heard the most insulting speech, which will deepen the sense of alienation between the Government and the Opposition. I have been here a long time and I recall an incident whereby the person who made that speech revealed to the newspapers how he made some of his money. He bought the council house of an elderly gentleman in London, who I think was a neighbour, on the basis that it would appreciate greatly in value and that the neighbour would not live very long. The agreement that the hon. Member made was that he would give the tenant, who would get a discount for being there for years, the money to buy the house and then the hon. Member would inherit the house. That is Tory morality, and it is morally repugnant. It is not the right to buy, but the right to greed. That man lectured us the other day and tried to castigate those whom he described contemptuously as low achievers.
The difficulty is the gulf between what the Government say and what they do. In March 2010, the Prime Minister made an impassioned speech about how he would clean up lobbying. He knew all about it: he was a lobbyist, and he was going to sort it all out. Where are we today, six years later? The Transparency of Lobbying, Non-Party Campaigning and Trade Union Administration Act 2014 has been passed, life for trade unions and charities is a bit more troublesome, but the big corporate lobbyists do not have to declare who their clients are. No worthwhile reform has happened. The Prime Minister has worried the minnows in the shallows, but the great fat salmon still swim by unhindered.
There is similarly no sincerity in the Government’s determination to tackle the tax havens. I will give the House an interesting example. Lord Blencathra, who sees himself as the spokesman for the Cayman Islands, mocked the Prime Minister, saying that he had no intention of carrying out his threats to deal with tax havens and that they were a “purely political gesture”—those were Lord Blencathra’s words. We have just heard that the First Minister of the Cayman Islands is putting two fingers up to the Prime Minister. They are not going to take any notice.
Let us look at the remarkable history of Lord Blencathra. It is a fascinating story that shows the laxness of our controls in this House. In 2012 I made a complaint about his behaviour. My complaint was taken to a Committee in the other House to examine. It suggested that he was in breach of the parliamentary code of conduct. His activities included lobbying the Chancellor about taxes affecting the Cayman Islands; he also facilitated an all-expenses paid trip to the islands for three prominent Members of this House. The Committee that deals with standards in the Lords held an investigation, and produced a remarkable document. Lord Blencathra explained that he was taking £12,000 a month in payment from the Cayman Islands, but that he was not lobbying Parliament or Government, but Members—or the other way around; he gave some spurious excuse. Quite remarkably, the decision was taken in 2012 that he had not been in breach of any rules of the House.
Two years later, the contract that Lord Blencathra had signed was leaked. It appeared that he had agreed in the contract to
“Promoting the Cayman Islands’ interests in the UK and Europe by liaising with and making representations to UK ministers, the FCO (Foreign and Commonwealth Office), Members of Parliament in the House of Commons and Members of the House of Lords.”
He put up a spirited defence, saying that he may have signed the contract but he had forgotten what he had agreed to, and anyway if he had signed it he had no intention of doing what it said. That is a most egregious breach of the code of conduct of the House—

Natascha Engel: Order. I have been listening very carefully. The hon. Gentleman knows that he is not to criticise Members of the other House directly or personally. He has been quoting from reports up until now. If he would desist from directly criticising Members of the other House, I would be very grateful.

Paul Flynn: These are not new matters, if I may say so. I have dealt with that matter now.
If the Government fail to act against their own Members, who are not trying to stop the abuses of tax havens but are actually lubricating them, how can we take them seriously? There is some agreement on this, and some pleasure in the House that this situation has happened, because it might expose the corruption that is so endemic and the huge sums disappearing into tax havens. Light has been shone on all that.
I believe that there is a political agenda behind those who have hacked into Mossack Fonseca’s site. We do not know what that agenda is, and it might well be very sinister, but I will repeat my earlier point: one of the curious things here is what is happening with other nations. China has $44 billion in the Cayman Islands and $49 billion in the British Virgin Islands. Those are huge sums of money, but they are only part of the revelations—part is still to come. The reverberations of this pivotal scandal will spread for decades.
I am curious about the Government’s reluctance to act against China in many other ways. We have already done a dreadful and financially disastrous deal over Hinkley Point, which might give us the most expensive electricity in the world, although the deal is now collapsing. The Government seem to want to ingratiate themselves with the Chinese Government. As a result, they are going soft on them in many ways. What is most damaging is that they are not taking sharp action against the undercutting of the steel industry that is affecting so many jobs here.
We have a strange relationship with the Cayman Islands. We provide them with great advantages, by providing their defence for them. The Government’s permissiveness must stop. We will look to the Government to take the tough line that they have promised at the anti-corruption conference. They have not taken it before, so let us see them do it there.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Natascha Engel: Order. I am sorry to have to say that everyone has gone way over my informal speech limit, so I am going to have to impose a formal one, of six minutes per speaker. I hope that people will not take too many interventions.

Maria Caulfield: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this debate. I welcome the measures being taken to tackle tax avoidance, but I feel that the events of the past few days, and this debate in particular, are more about the politics of envy.
As a result of this Government’s measures, the top 1% of earners are paying 28% of income tax, a figure that is likely to grow. In the figures released in the past couple of days by the Leader of the Opposition, the Chancellor and the Prime Minister we can see evidence of the fact that those who earn more, pay more, with the Prime Minister paying nearly £76,000 in income tax—double the amount that I earned as a nurse just months ago. That shows that there is equality in this country—if someone earns more, they pay more.
I accept the point of the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) that there is a difference between what is said in this House and what is done here. Opposition Members talk about reducing inequality in taxation but then oppose the measures that have seen 3 million of the lowest paid people in this country taken out of tax altogether. Opposition Members voted against measures, not just in the Budget just gone but in last year’s Budget, that froze fuel duty, VAT and national insurance—which, again, help the lowest paid people in this country. The Labour party introduced the 10p tax rate, which actually hit the lowest paid. We will take no lectures on tax equality.
In the short time that I have, I shall touch on inheritance tax, which seems to be at the front when Opposition Members lead the march of their politics of envy. They assume that inheritance tax is there only to tackle people with high incomes and a lot of assets. My constituency, Lewes, is in the south-east, and I am seeing more and more low-income families whose houses—their family homes—have increased in price, through no fault of their own, so that they now fall into the bracket for inheritance tax, and are having to move out of their family home when that tax is due. They are asset rich but income poor. That means that people who are nurses, like me, or teachers or cleaners, and cannot afford to pay inheritance tax, are having to leave their local areas. That is a particular issue in London and the south-east. For Opposition Members to dismiss that issue and claim that only wealthy people with huge incomes pay inheritance tax is very misleading.
I have a couple of other points to make. The feeling that success is measured only in wealth is absolutely wrong. We do not simply measure success in wealth, but—I think my hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) made this point earlier—nor should we penalise those who have done well. It would be a sorry day if this country became a place in which, when someone has done well, has set up a successful business, is contributing to their local economy and is employing people, they were penalised, and not only that but frowned upon as well.
This party is trying to help people, whether they are on a low income or have been successful. We are the party of low taxation, whether people are poor or rich. [Interruption.] I see Opposition Members laughing, but I welcome the measures this Government have taken—both the crackdown on illegal tax avoidance and the measures introduced to take the poorest out of  taxation altogether. I hope that Opposition Members will desist from the politics of envy and deal with the problem of tax avoidance.

David Anderson: First, let me reply to a few points that have been raised today. I agree that it was utterly wrong that a cleaner was paying more tax than a hedge fund manager—it stank. But thank God that cleaner was getting the national minimum wage, which was resisted by the Conservative party and the Liberal Democrats: £3.60 instead of £1.90—that is the truth. I welcome the fact that low-paid people have been taken out of paying tax, but we must recognise that 1 million people in this country are on zero-hours contracts. That is 2.5% of the workforce who would not have been taxed no matter what the tax threshold was because their pay is so abysmal. Five million public sector workers in this country have seen their tax threshold rise, but they have also had their pay frozen or cut for the last eight years. So we must look at the whole picture, and not just say that the tax threshold has risen and therefore everything is okay. It isn’t true.
The Prime Minister was right to say on Monday that nobody should traduce his dad. That was wrong, and the attack on his mother because she gave him a gift was not right either. It is normal and right that parents want to help their kids—all parents want to do that. In principle, if someone’s dad or mother has expertise in any field, we would expect them to use that knowledge on behalf of their kids. That applies to stockbrokers as much as it does to stockmen, and to bakers as much as to bankers.
The real problem that the leak has exposed is the huge range of opportunities that are open only to the rich, wealthy and powerful in this nation, which proves that we simply are not all in this together. Whichever way this is dressed up, it is clear that those in the know have not only the opportunity or good fortune to make money in the first place, but when they get that money, many more avenues are open to them to allow them to keep their hands on it. That is one reason why eyebrows were raised across the country and in the House when Conservative Members pushed through cuts to income tax from 50% to 45%, and huge rises in the level at which inheritance tax cuts in, because they personally would gain from that. If anyone else did that we would say it was criminal, but those Members stood to gain personally from that measure.
The Prime Minister earns £150,000 a year doing a job that we all understand is really hard. He tops it up with £50,000 a year from renting out his house, and he gets another £40,000 a year from his savings and investments. He then turns round and says to poor people in this country, “I’m sorry, mate, but you’ve got to cough up another £14 a week for your bedroom tax”; or a disabled person who struggles to exist on benefits is told, “You don’t need any more money than a fit person in your position, so you’re going to have to give us back £30 a week.” And what about the anger of 5 million public servants in this country who have been told time and again—this year for the eighth year running—“You must accept a real-terms cut in your living standards”?

Dawn Butler: I had a conversation with a Conservative Member who suggested to me that Members should declare their unearned earnings. Does my hon. Friend know what that means?

David Anderson: I haven’t got a clue what unearned earnings means—I have never been in a position to have unearned any earnings. The Minister might be able to answer that when summing up the debate, and I would be interested to find that out.
The Chancellor of the Exchequer is paid £120,000 a year. He also receives £34,000 a year in rental income from his house, because he lives at No. 11 Downing Street, as well as dividend payments of £44,000 a year. But what does he say to nurses, care workers, prison officers, police officers, and, yes, tax collectors? He says they must work harder and longer—

Kwasi Kwarteng: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

David Anderson: Sit down.
The Chancellor says to those people, “You must work harder, and you must accept that you will have to work for longer before you get your pension.” How can he expect steel workers in this country, who are facing the possibility of a life on the dole, to believe that he really understands what they are going through?
The Mayor of London receives £143,000 for doing his day job, a quarter of a million pounds a year for writing for The Daily Telegraph, another quarter of a million in royalties from his books, and more money from his savings. Ordinary people in this country are fed up with carrying the can for the mistakes of the rich in this country—mistakes that led us into the economic crisis that is blighting the daily life of men and women who will never get the chance to save anything in the first place, let alone squirrel it away in the Caribbean, the Virgin Islands or the Channel Islands, where no questions are asked as long as people know the drill.
In two weeks the Trade Union Bill will come back to this House, and the most tightly regulated body in the country will face even more restrictions under the sad reality of what we have been told is the sunshine of transparency. The hon. Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) spoke about trade unions not paying corporation tax, but I dare bet that them not doing that involved fully audited accounts that have been signed off, not hidden away. Why do we not subject financial markets, regulators and dealers to the same tight regulations that this Government intend to impose on trade unions, whose only job is to look after the interests of ordinary men and women in this country? Why do we not put the same effort into chasing tax dodgers as we do into hounding so-called benefit cheats—a process that traduces innocent people and sees their families rubbished? People are sanctioned without money for weeks on end, and at the end of that someone says, “Oh, we made a mistake.” What happened in the meantime? Why on earth do the Government think that people in this country angry?
A lot has been said about the politics of envy, but this is about the politics of fairness. Make no mistake—this week we are seeing the end of the farce of “We’re all in this together”. Hon. Members should read today’s motion carefully because it is a roadmap, a loophole and a get-out for Conservative Members to say to people in this country, “We’ve heard your anger and frustration. We hear what you say. Let’s work together and find a way out of this.” Instead, they have shut the door and want to carry on the dodgy deals. No matter what they say, yet again there is one law for the rich and one for the poor, and the people of this country will not stand for it.

Robert Jenrick: Like the hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) I thought that the most important thing to come out of the Panama papers was the revelation of criminality and corruption here and abroad. I hope that HMRC and authorities around the world will take note and bring prosecutions, and that that will lead to further crackdowns on corruption, including in places such as China, where I would not like to be one of the individuals named in the Panama papers. It is right that the authorities should take action.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee), I believe that this issue cuts to a question of trust, but the antidote to mistrust is not moralising or phoney outrage; it is credible, practical action that makes a difference and which the public can believe in. That is what the Government have been doing. Just because some Members of the House or the media have not followed this issue; just because the right hon. Member for Islington North (Jeremy Corbyn) did not say anything about this matter during 13 years of the Labour Government; just because he sat on the British Overseas Territories Bill Committee and did not raise any issues of tax evasion; and just because he referred to the Labour Government taking control of the Turks and Caicos Islands as “medieval” and “extremely undemocratic”; and just because others have taken their eye off the ball, it does not mean that the Prime Minister or Government have done the same.
Let me say a few words about the key things that the Government have done, many of which have already been mentioned. Raising the issue of tax evasion at the G8 summit and creating the world’s first public beneficial register of ownership was a major historic development. Many campaigned against it, actually for perfectly legitimate reasons, such as that it is a massive invasion of the privacy of law-abiding people. However, it is a huge step forward in the campaign against tax avoidance and evasion. It is happening in this country first, and we should be proud of that and not make it seem as if it is something that we take for granted. This Government were the first to do that, and other major economies around the world, like the United States, have not done that.
In one month the all-party group on corporate governance, which I help to run, will bring Chief Justice Leo Strine, who runs the Delaware Supreme Court, to Parliament. If Members care about this issue, and if this is not just phoney outrage, they should come to that event and question him about why Delaware—the state in which 90% of the major corporations of the United States are registered—has not yet followed the lead of this Prime Minister. We should encourage him to do the same.
The general anti-avoidance law was another major and controversial measure taken by the previous coalition Government. It was opposed by the Labour party. At the time, the Labour party spokesman said it was inadvisable to take this action until after the conclusion of the base erosion and profit shifting process, so it would not have happened under a Labour Government. It happened under a Conservative and Liberal Democrat Government.

Robin Walker: My hon. Friend is making a very interesting point. May I add another initiative which, to be fair, was an initiative of the previous Labour  Government? The extractive industries transparency initiative was brought in by Labour, but it did not sign the UK up to it. This initiative is very important for raising tax revenue not just in the UK but around the world, and for making sure there is proper transparency as to where the extractive industries pay their money. Many of us, cross-party, campaigned for that. The Business, Innovation and Skills Committee said it was a mistake for the previous Government not to have signed up to it. This Government have, quite rightly, taken us into it.

Robert Jenrick: The point my hon. Friend makes is that practical and credible policies are the way to tackle this issue. We have seen results, contrary to some of the accusations we have heard today. According to the latest HMRC figures, the tax gap was higher in 2009-10 than it is today. The tax gap for corporations, large and small, was 40% to 50% higher. The tax gap for stamp duty was 40% higher under the previous Labour Government than it is today. Loopholes have been closed and practical measures are being brought in. By no means is this the end of the story—of course there is more to do—but I am pleased to say that the UK Government are genuinely leading the world on this issue. I want to see them do a lot more.
Lowering taxes is another important element in encouraging good behaviour, both by individuals and corporations. Corporation tax at 17%, versus 30% in the United States, will be a major step forward. Only the other day, President Obama was forced to take action against Pfizer because of its motivation to move to lower tax jurisdictions because of the 30% corporation tax in the United States.
There is more to do. I do not stand here for one minute claiming that this is mission accomplished, but we have to be clear that a lot of good steps have been taken. It is bad for business to have tax havens operating as they do today. Let me give Members a brief example from a previous career I had working as a managing director of an art business. Many valuable works of art are held in Panama and other such places. One dispute, over the ownership of a painting that had probably been seized by the Nazis, lasted for four years. The likely owners claimed that they did not know anything about the painting or who owned it. That has been revealed, thanks to the Panama papers, to be an outright lie. The Nahmad brothers, global collectors of art, were revealed to be the owners. I suspect that that painting will finally be going back to its legitimate owner in the near future. Tax havens operating as they do today is bad for individuals and bad for business, particularly in such disputes.
I want to close by commenting on tax privacy, an issue raised both in the press, by Polly Toynbee and others, and by my hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell. I think this would be a seriously detrimental step for the privacy of individuals in this country and all over the world. The last major occasion I can think of when this occurred in a large developed economy was during the civil war in the United States. To try to encourage compliance when income tax was introduced, tax returns were posted on the walls of courthouses across the United States. It was one of the most unpopular policies in the history of the United States and it did not increase compliance. The Secretary of the Treasury, Andrew Mellon, said:
“It was utterly useless from a Treasury perspective, just the gratification of idle curiosity and filling of newspaper space.”
Setting aside Prime Ministers and politicians, let us defend the right of individuals in this country to have privacy in their business and financial affairs. The legitimate, law-abiding citizens of this country should not be the losers from some individuals taking part in criminal acts.

Stewart McDonald: Well, it is some scandal, is it not, that has been leaked to us? Criminals, politicians and dictators have been hiding billions and billions of pounds in offshore accounts under the names of companies that do not actually exist. In fact, it is the scale and nature of the scandal that causes me to be so depressed about the nature of the debate we have had both in the Chamber this afternoon and in the run-up to this afternoon. It has taken us almost two weeks to actually start debating the issue. I did not quite buy everything that the hon. Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) had to say, but I thought he at least gave one of the most incisive speeches among this afternoon’s contributions.
It is obvious that this issue is such a major hot potato for the two main parties in this Chamber: so hot that they seem to prefer to kick it back and forward—“You’re worse than us.” “We’re better than you.” Meanwhile, the public want us to debate the issues raised by the leaks. Forget the Twitter hashtags. Forget what has been written in the newspapers. Forget the sneering snobbery on one side and the braying mobs on the other. Let us actually deal with the issue. The issue is not about class; we can have an academic discussion about class later on. This is about criminality. That is what the motion seeks to address and what I think all of us in the Chamber really want to address.
It strikes me that there are two key ways in which we can tackle the problem: through the resources made available to the public agencies and through changes to legislation. As a lot of Members have mentioned, we can also look at beefing up international co-operation. I genuinely welcome the measures the Prime Minister announced in his statement to the House on Monday. The cross-agency taskforce and the funding that will come with it, and the other measures relating to legislation, are extremely important and to be welcomed. I would like the Minister, in summing up, to say whether Interpol will have a role to play. I have not heard anything about that at all. In fact, no public statement has been made on this issue on Interpol’s website. I would therefore like to know whether Interpol will be invited to the corruption summit the Prime Minister will be hosting.
I am concerned about the pattern that forms when big scandals break, whether it is this one, the Volkswagen scandal or the Google scandal. This is a very British pattern—a pattern of only ever responding to events. I had hoped to hear more about how the Government intend to beef up the resources of HMRC to deal with this, because it is clearly not working. We have had some back and forth about more money, fewer staff and more staff, and fewer centres. It is clearly not working, so somebody really needs to step back and look at the problem within the context that actually exists. I had also hoped to hear more about how we would be trying to recoup some of the tax we are owed. I go back to the  point made earlier: this is about criminality. I can only hope that some of this will be getting talked about in the Paris talks today, at which, I understand, the UK Government are represented.
The Government made a lot of their ambition to secure economic security for Britain. They are absolutely right to mention that. The threats we face in terms of financial security are not to be taken lightly. In my view, they should be up there with the threats we face from terrorist organisations. There are different consequences, but both are absolutely serious. Just as the Prime Minister announced the recruitment of additional staff for agencies such as MI5 in the aftermath of attacks on our doorstep in Europe, he should seek to do the exact same thing for the public agencies dealing with criminal finance.
I do not have much time to go into the detail, but I would like the Government to reflect more about what happens in Australia with unexplained wealth orders. I shall not throw my full weight and support behind them, because I am hesitant about what they mean for the presumption of innocence and the right to silence. We should, however, look at the issue. Such orders are also being used successfully in Italy against gangs such as the Mafia.
The public require us to act and to stop the politicking that we have seen in some contributions today. This is a big challenge, and what we need to deal with it are the fine minds of this House—there are some, such as the right hon. Member for Barking (Dame Margaret Hodge), the former Chair of the Public Accounts Committee—coming together on a cross-party or perhaps even a cross-parliamentary basis. We could tap in to some of the devolved Parliaments as well, and start to take the issue seriously. We should ignore all those who operate under a cloud of anonymity, who tell us, “You wouldn’t understand it; it is too difficult”. That just allows them to carry on doing what has got us to this point. Failure to act will keep on feeding the cancerous way in which our politics is conducted. That will be to the detriment of us all.

Sammy Wilson: This debate is important for all the reasons that have been mentioned: public frustration at those who can earn money and not pay tax while the rest of the people have to pay it; the stretching of public finances at a time of austerity and the need to ensure that legitimate taxes are paid; and, of course, the concern that the ability to evade taxes and to hide sources of income leads to all kinds of corruption, including, as we have found in Northern Ireland, the ability to finance terrorism.
Let me put it on the record that however much the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Chancellor beat their chests about the evasion of taxes, they showed friendship to and favoured the very people who used all kinds of fiscal fraud to finance murder in Northern Ireland for 30 years—and we have never heard an apology from them about it.
As the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald) said, we must approach this matter with a sense of maturity rather than a “politics of envy” approach. I know that some Opposition Members have denied it, but some contributions have demonstrated  such an approach. Equally, on the Government side, there must be a willingness to listen to the genuine concerns and deal with the issues raised.
I do not believe that we can deal with this matter simply by demanding that everybody produce and publish their tax returns. Someone who is going to evade tax is hardly going to put that down on their tax return in any case. Where does this stop? If the issue is all about how the creation of policy has been influenced, what about top civil servants, who are involved in policy making? What about the heads of many public sector organisations, who are also involved in it? What of the press? We cannot have the critics of what happens in this House avoiding the publication of their own tax returns. As I say, where does it stop?
In any case, the answer does not lie in publishing tax returns. I believe that three important points have been identified. I shall not go through all of them, but the first one is that we must know who is responsible for the income of a certain business or company and be able to trace it, because the issues of accessibility and transparency are important. How do we achieve that? I think that the Government have already gone some way along the road.
Strangely enough, Labour Members believe that we should use Orders in Council against independent territories—a form of colonialism that I would have thought they would not support. [Interruption.] Opposition Members may say that is nonsense, but either we regard these places as independent territories that make their own laws, and seek to co-operate with and persuade them to do the right thing, or we impose the laws on them, which as far as I am concerned is a form of colonialism. I do not think it would work. I think the Government are right to seek to persuade those territories to come along and see the implications of allowing people to hide their identities in some of the businesses based in them.
The second important point is about tax avoidance. Many Members have talked about it today, but millions of people in the United Kingdom engage in tax avoidance and think nothing of it, because it is within the law. When a tax code can run to 22,000-plus pages, with all the allowances and other provisions in it, of course people are going to find loopholes. Unfortunately, as the hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) said, the people best able to do that are people who have huge resources at their disposal. Many taxpayers do not have such resources, so a simpler tax system would help. Adam Smith, whose words have been cited in the Chamber today, laid down the canons of taxation, which he said were fairness, simplicity and the ability to collect taxes economically. Those are some of the principles that we should keep in mind.
Thirdly, there is the issue of enforceability. I have reservations about the direction in which the Government are going. Of course we should find efficiencies in public services, but when I see how many tax offices are closing, especially in border towns in Northern Ireland, where hundreds of years’ worth of experience in dealing with some of the worst money launderers in the United Kingdom is being lost, I ask myself whether we are really serious about taking on the tax evaders. Even when we spot them, they are not always prosecuted. HSBC has been identified as one bank that enabled many people to evade taxes—I believe that there were  7,000, and that more than 1,100 were in the United Kingdom—but there has been only one prosecution so far. It is not just a case of having the resources to enforce. It is a case of making sure that when people are caught, examples are made of them and they are punished accordingly, so that the message that goes out is, “This will not be tolerated.”
I believe that if we do not work to achieve greater transparency, an efficient tax system that does not leave loopholes and a proper method of enforcement, what is happening now will go on and on.

Mark Durkan: I want to take up the point made by the hon. Member for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) about enforcement. He mentioned the closure of tax offices in Northern Ireland. I know that a tax office in my constituency is due to be closed in the next few years, which means the loss of work that it was doing on matters including the recovery of overseas taxes.
However, I do not want to join those who have used the debate to make points about the Government’s general tax policy or taxation record, because I think that the public would expect us to be debating the enormous implications of the Panama papers. I do not wish to conflate questions about the syndicated global grand larceny that is revealed in those papers with questions about personal taxation involving the Prime Minister or, indeed, anyone else. I would prefer us to concentrate—in this and other debates that will take place between now and the global anti-corruption summit that the Prime Minister will host—on the sort of issues that we would have been discussing anyway.
We have heard much from Conservative Members about the Government’s record of changing tax thresholds and about what is happening to the taxes of the wealthier people in the country, and we have heard the views of Opposition Members as well, but let us now address some of the global implications of the Panama papers. When we consider the larceny that is represented in those papers and the people who have avoided or evaded taxes, we should bear in mind that this is not a victimless duplicity or deceit, because other people have been left to pay those taxes. Other firms are having to pay taxes in order to meet the needs of exchequers worldwide, not least those in developing countries. Other people are missing out on services or salaries, because the tax is not there to maintain services at the levels necessary to improve the development of infrastructure or to pay salaries. People are losing out. These are not the politics of envy, but the politics of reality and social justice. These are the politics that say that, in the 21st century, we should live in a world where we are all in it together. That is why fairness in taxation worldwide is so important.

Mike Kane: The hon. Gentleman is, as usual, making a powerful speech. Christian Aid noted recently that an oil company in Uganda had approached Mossack Fonseca in an attempt to avoid paying £400 million worth of taxes there. That is equivalent to the budget of the entire Ugandan healthcare service. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the avoidance of such taxes is not a victimless crime?

Mark Durkan: Absolutely. That example amplifies the point that I was making. I want to acknowledge the work of not just Christian Aid, but Oxfam, ActionAid, Global Witness and Transparency International. Those organisations have worked with many Members of Parliament for years to make us more aware of these issues. Not least, I want to acknowledge the work of the all-party parliamentary group on anti-corruption, including the contributions of the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), and the hon. Member for Amber Valley (Nigel Mills). The hon. Gentleman cannot be with us today, but he has taken a keen interest in many of the issues that have now surfaced in an even more dramatic form in the Panama papers.
It would have been interesting to hear from the Minister whether the Government were actually shocked by the Panama papers. We know about all the attention and fuss about the Prime Minister, but did the Government regard the other issues as par for the course? Did they know they were going on? Were they therefore informing their various measures against corruption, or did the revelations tell them that the issue was bigger than they were aware of? Given that Mossack Fonseca is not the biggest firm in Panama, what worries have they about what else is going on there?
We heard the Prime Minister say earlier, “The agencies that deal with this are independent and we cannot deal with them.” Someone somewhere should be asking them, “Is this what you knew? Has this shocked you? Are you doing anything more in response?” Journalists are being asked to provide the information. Is anyone else being pursued for the information? Is anyone having their door knocked or collar felt? It seems not. That seems odd.
As the Prime Minister is hosting a global anti-corruption summit, he should be showing himself to be much more active in response to the papers. Now that he has perhaps in his own mind dealt with the issues that arose about himself, he can address the wider issues. Perhaps if he had addressed the wider issues last week, people would have thought that that was misdirection and that he was trying to avoid the issue on his part. However, he needs to address those issues now if the summit is to be worth while.
It is particularly disappointing to hear the Prime Minister being the spin doctor for the Crown territories and their role. I cannot believe they are not a tax haven. He is trying to say that, because they have moved a bit following what he said in 2013 about what he was going to compel and ask them to do, that is enough. There has been progress. There are indications of possible progress, but he should not be lessening the pressure on the Crown dependencies in the lead-up to the summit. He should be ratcheting up the pressure on them and everyone else. He should be doing so by showing a stronger response here in relation to our own agencies.
In the debate, there has been much discussion by Members about the difference between avoidance and evasion. Let us be clear. A syndicated effort has gone into the artifice that is involved in some of these shells, shams, scams and schemes. We know that the architecture of avoidance is fitted with the engineering of evasion. Therefore, there is not that much of a difference. Therefore, we need stronger global action.
That is why I again ask the Government to consider their attitude to some global measures. In the past, when they said they wanted to lead against corruption  and were putting taxation central stage at the UN summit and beyond, they also set their face against any notion of a financial transaction tax. If there were a financial transaction tax at a global level, it would at least ensure that there was more marking of what was going on in all these different schemes and moves, where companies appear to trade with shadow versions of themselves and shells are registered in different places. The very existence of a uniform global transaction tax would bring some tracking and tracing to some of those schemes and bring more transparency, which people say is needed.
The Panama papers represent discovering what has been done in terms of the recovery of tax. The Government seem to have a pretty pedestrian attitude to that at this stage. They seem to be more concerned about the media flap last week about the Prime Minister being embroiled in some of this. They think that that is over, but they seem to be taking a fairly pedestrian approach to an issue that is scandalising many still and is burdening people in poor countries.

Seema Malhotra: I thank the many organisations that have been involved in supporting the inquiry on the issue of the Panama papers. They include Oxfam, Tax Justice Network, Global Witness, Transparency International and Christian Aid. They have played an invaluable role. I also thank all Members for their contributions to the debate. They include the hon. Members for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), for Torbay (Kevin Foster), for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge), for Newark (Robert Jenrick), for East Antrim (Sammy Wilson) and for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), and my hon. Friends the Members for Blaydon (Mr Anderson), for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) and for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams), all of whom have raised important issues.
We have heard about tax being not a donation but a legal requirement, and about the need to take the non-payment of tax incredibly seriously. We have also heard that the work of the Public Accounts Committee is vital in this area. My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell) said that this was a pivotal moment that the Government must not squander. We have also heard about the challenges relating to prosecutions owing to the complexity of the structures of multinational companies, and about the need to extend the law further to tackle the wider issues of economic crime.
This is a moment that we must seize. The public and the media have not always been engaged with this issue, but they can now see the scale of the injustice not only in the UK but across the world. The Panama papers have lifted the lid, and there is no going back. These revelations have provided concrete examples of what we have all suspected; they have exposed details of the worst excesses of our international financial system.
At the heart of the issue is the matter of public trust and confidence in the fairness of our tax system. People rightly say, “I pay my fair share towards the cost of vital public services. I can’t dodge or negotiate with the tax authorities, so why should wealthy individuals and  companies get away with not paying their fair share?” Despite all the claims that we have heard from the Government, people do not think that they have done enough to tackle the problem, either here or in the overseas territories and Crown dependencies for which we have responsibility.
This is a global issue and it needs a global response. Today’s debate reflects the widespread public view that individuals and companies should pay their fair share, and we are calling on the Government to implement Labour’s tax transparency enforcement programme. Labour has a strong record on tax evasion and avoidance. The measures that we introduced while we were in power will still raise 10 times as much over the coming years as those introduced by the Tories in the last Parliament. That is the conclusion of analysis carried out by the Financial Times.
Over the past week, the Government have had the chance to step up and take a strong lead. It is disappointing that they have failed to do so. The Government’s taskforce and other measures represent a missed opportunity to end the secrecy ahead of next month’s anti-corruption summit. In 2013, the Prime Minister wrote to overseas territories and Crown dependencies calling for greater transparency and for fully resourced and properly managed centralised registries. He wrote again on this subject. We have had written questions and oral questions, but we can now see that it is not the Government’s intention to push the issue of public registers further. Instead, the information that has been agreed on will be available only to UK law enforcement and tax authorities.
The beneficial ownership agreement with the Cayman Islands allows only designated Cayman Islands officials directly to obtain and provide to the UK details of beneficial ownership of companies incorporated in the Cayman Islands. Furthermore, the UK’s Swiss tax agreement announced in 2011 has raised just a fraction of the promised £5.3 billion. So the Government are very good at spin, but their record does not stand up to scrutiny. What is particularly stark about the Panama revelations is that more than half the companies named in the papers were registered in UK-governed tax havens. That is something of which we should be ashamed. We believe that the UK should be leading the global campaign to fight against aggressive tax avoidance and evasion; instead, we are lagging behind.
There are a number of other vital issues. We have talked about the need for an independent inquiry. While there have been moves across the world, including an important meeting in Paris today organised by the Joint International Tax Shelter Information & Collaboration network, our officials have not yet managed to make it to Hitchin to undertake their own inquiries into the Panama papers.
The issue is effectively one of theft. Every year, about $200 billion of untaxed income is taken out of poor countries by international corporations that are avoiding paying tax. Speed is another issue, as was highlighted by the chair of the JITSIC network, who emphasised today the need for immediate information exchange. Far from seeing the Government heed that call, they continue to slow down, not accelerate, their action to tackle tax avoidance.
We have a lot more to do. We need greater parliamentary scrutiny, a specialised tax enforcement unit, greater public sector transparency, including having companies that want to bid for public sector contracts make public  their beneficial owners. We need greater co-operation with our European partners, country-by-country reporting and protection for whistleblowers. The issue also highlights the importance of our membership of the European Union in tackling complex problems that do not stop at national borders. We have called on the Government to take much more action and fast. We have called for stricter minimum standards for Crown dependencies and overseas territories, but the lack of stronger international standards was cited by the Financial Secretary today as a reason for not pushing for public registers of beneficial owners.
Let me add one more point in conclusion. On Monday, the right hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Sir Alan Duncan) said that the Opposition should
“snap out of their synthetic indignation”
and that we risk having a House
“stuffed full of low achievers who hate enterprise”.—[Official Report, 11 April 2016; Vol. 608, c. 34.]
Sadly, the Financial Secretary seemed to back him up. This is not about begrudging successful entrepreneurs and those who succeed in business; it is about basic fairness in our society. This is an issue on which the rich and poor who believe in fairness are united. When we shirk our responsibility to crack down on tax havens, we let down our country and our constituents. That is why I urge the House to join us in voting in support of Labour’s proposed measures today.

Harriett Baldwin: I am again delighted to be given the opportunity to outline the action that the Government are proud to have taken to tackle tax evasion, tax avoidance and aggressive tax planning. No Government have done more to ensure that people and companies pay the taxes they owe and to crack down on those who do not play by the rules. That is why, from day one, we have introduced measure after measure to close down the tax loopholes we inherited, to increase the punishment for those who break the law, to drive forward tax transparency and ensure that the UK is at the forefront of new global standards, to ensure that international tax rules are fit for the 21st century, to reform the regimes in overseas territories and Crown dependencies, and to increase HMRC’s powers to collect the money that pays for the public services on which we all depend.
Yes, individuals and companies should pay their fair share of tax, which is exactly what this Government have been ensuring that they do. The activities in Panama are already the subject of intensive HMRC investigation. It is imperative that the leaked data are examined closely, which is why we are setting up and providing funding for an operationally independent, cross-agency taskforce to sift through the millions of pages of data. Where there is evidence of any wrongdoing, rapid action will be taken. The Government also attach great importance to giving HMRC the resources to protect our tax base, which is why at last year’s summer Budget we announced an extra £800 million to fund additional work to tackle evasion and non-compliance by 2020-21. That will enable HMRC to recover a cumulative £7.2 billion in tax over the next five years.
The Opposition motion talks about beneficial ownership. Thanks to this Government’s action, our register of company beneficial ownership will go live in June. We are  the first major country to have such a list in place, free for anyone to access. In addition, we are consulting on requiring foreign companies that own property or bid on public contracts in England to provide beneficial ownership information, too.
We heard from a range of speakers today. The hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) has a new-found interest in a topic he asked no questions on during 13 years of Labour government, but he has managed over the past week to confirm his party as anti-aspiration and anti-wealth-creation, and as wanting to create an atmosphere of envy. We heard from the hon. Member for Dundee East (Stewart Hosie), who was much more welcoming of the measures the Government have introduced, and he also attacked Labour’s lack of action in 13 years. We heard a very informed speech from my hon. Friend the Member for Torbay (Kevin Foster), a member of the Public Accounts Committee, who shared with us his expertise in that area. We also heard an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who is chair and founder of the all-party group on anti-corruption. She will be aware of the proposed new offences that we are introducing in terms of prosecuting companies that fail to prevent evasion. She will want to participate in that consultation and in the process of legislation on that offence.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge) brought in his expertise in business, highlighting the steps the Government have taken to help low earners. The hon. Member for Oldham East and Saddleworth (Debbie Abrahams) used some fairly dodgy statistics, but I am pleased to confirm that the amount of £1.8 billion has been made available for compliance and enforcement, which is an increase in resources, over the last two Parliaments. She raised questions about trusts, asking whether the arrangements relating to the beneficial ownership of companies should be extended to trusts. There are many legitimate reasons for creating a trust and the vast majority of trusts across the UK are used for legitimate purposes. Setting up a blanket requirement would distract action from the areas of most concern, such as shell companies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bracknell (Dr Lee) made an interesting speech, in which he recommended abolishing corporation tax completely. The Government are not ready to do that at this point in time. The hon. Member for Newport West (Paul Flynn) made an angry speech that included rather a lot of personal attacks on individual Conservative politicians. My hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Maria Caulfield) made an excellent speech highlighting the Labour party’s politics of envy and our steps to make our income tax system even more progressive.
The hon. Member for Blaydon (Mr Anderson) spoke up for the low-paid, but I detected a strong streak of the politics of envy for anyone else in his speech. My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Robert Jenrick) made a good speech about the credible action against corruption and criminality that this Government have taken. He gave an excellent and incisive summary of what we have done, drawing on his knowledge of the art world. We heard an interesting speech from the hon. Member for Glasgow South (Stewart Malcolm McDonald), and I can confirm that HMRC does work closely with Interpol and is indeed finalising the list for the anti-corruption  summit as we speak. We heard helpful contributions from Members from Northern Ireland, who welcomed some of the steps the Government have taken.
In conclusion, this country is leading the way on tackling tax evasion and tax avoidance, bringing in billions from offshore tax evaders since 2010 through the actions we have taken. We have made more than 40 changes to tax law in the last Parliament alone, and in this Parliament more than 25 have already been announced for legislation.
Although Labour has suddenly decided to give lectures on tax, I remind the House that when we came into office there were foreign nationals not paying capital gains tax when selling UK property, private equity managers paying lower rates of tax than their cleaners, and rich homebuyers getting away without paying stamp duty by owning homes through companies. We have taken action to fix that. We have increased the amount paid in income tax by the top 1% from £31 billion 10 years ago to £47 billion now. We have made our taxes more internationally competitive. We have cut income tax for tens of millions of hard-working people, rewarded aspiration and made the tax system better, fairer and more efficient. That is our record. We are proud of it, and I urge the House to vote against today’s Opposition motion.
The House divided:
Ayes 266, Noes 300.

Question accordingly negatived.

SCHOOLS WHITE PAPER

Lindsay Hoyle: I inform the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister. It may assist the House if I explain that, as this is not an allotted Opposition day—in other words, it is not one of the 20 Opposition days required under Standing Orders—the usual procedure governing the handling of amendments does not apply. After the Opposition spokesman has spoken and moved the Opposition motion, the Minister will be called to move the Government amendment. The debate will then take place on the question that the amendment be made. At the end of the debate, the question on the Government amendment will be put, followed by the question that the main motion, amended or not as may be the case, be agreed to.

Lucy Powell: I beg to move,
That this House believes that every child deserves an excellent education; notes that the Government is proposing to force all primary and secondary schools in England to become academies as part of multi-academy trusts or chains by 2022 at the latest; further notes that the vast majority of schools affected by this policy will be primary schools, over 80 per cent of which are already rated good and outstanding; notes that there are outstanding academies and excellent community schools but also poor examples of both types of such school; further notes the Fourth Report from the Education Committee, Academies and free schools, Session 2014-15, HC 258, which highlights that there is no evidence that academisation in and of itself leads to school improvement; notes that the Schools White Paper proposes the removal of parent governors from school governing bodies which will reduce the genuine involvement of parents and communities in local schools; and calls on the Government to put these proposals on hold as there is insufficient evidence that they will raise standards.
I am pleased that we have secured this debate following the Government’s rushed publication of their schools White Paper, which has caused much concern among parents, communities, heads, teachers and others. The main and most controversial proposal is to force all schools to become academies and the vast majority into multi-academy trusts or chains by 2022. That is the proposal on which we have decided to focus this debate, because we believe that the plans are deeply flawed, are not supported by evidence, have already caused huge disruption in schools, and notably, seem to have very few supporters.
There is a growing alliance of those with concerns, including Conservative Members and local government leaders, as well as leading headteacher unions such as the National Association of Head Teachers and the Association of School and College Leaders. It is my intention that this debate be used as an opportunity to air such concerns, and I hope that the Secretary of State will listen carefully, put the plans on hold, and not plough on regardless.
There are elements of the White Paper that we can support, such as the independent college of teaching, but we cannot support the main thrust of forced, wholesale academisation.
The Government’s plan has been met with such concern, even by the very school leaders they claim to be supporting, because it is a bad policy with no evidence base. It is yet  another policy from this Government that is obsessed with school structures instead of standards. What is more, given the very real pressures faced by schools today—including huge teacher shortages, real-terms cuts to school budgets for the first time in 20 years and major overhauls to curriculums, assessments and exams—the idea that heads should spend time, money and energy on a £1.3 billion top-down reorganisation of our schools system is, at best, a distraction and, at worst, will have a very damaging impact on school standards.

Andrew Gwynne: I declare an interest as a governor of Denton West End primary academy in my constituency. The point is that that school chose to become an academy because parents and teachers decided that that was the best model for school improvement. Should not we also respect the parents and teachers at those schools that wish to remain under local authority control?

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes an extremely good point, which I will come on to make myself shortly.

Jim Cunningham: Does my hon. Friend agree that the proposal could lead to more school closures in the public sector? More importantly, we might face difficulties recruiting teachers. The £1.9 billion could have been better spent on public services rather than on an ideological argument.

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend echoes the concerns raised by the NAHT union in a memo it sent this morning to all MPs.
The Tory obsession with school structures has completely missed the point. Just as there are some excellent academies, there are some excellent community schools. There are also some poor academies and some poor community schools. No type of school has a monopoly on excellence. We need to build an education system that provides an excellent education for all children, rather than pitting one type of school against another. Nearly a month has passed since the Chancellor made the announcement, but we have yet to hear any answers to the question “Why?” When schools that want to become academies can already do so, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Andrew Gwynne) has said, and when schools that the Government deem to be failing or coasting can already be put into an academy chain, why force all others? This is not about school improvement, nor is it about autonomy and freedoms. The multi-academy trust model is in its infancy, and real questions are emerging about accountability, probity, capacity and, for some, standards.

Catherine West: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Lucy Powell: I will make some progress, because a lot of people want to speak. I will take interventions shortly.
Let us look at each of the Government’s arguments in turn. First, the Government say that this is about school improvement. Let us look at the evidence. The vast majority of schools that will be affected by the policy will be primary schools, of which more than 17% are already academies. Of those that are not, more than  80% are already rated good or outstanding. In secondary, where more than two thirds of schools are already academies, there are more failing academies than non-academies. In places such as Doncaster, Bexley and north-east Lincolnshire, where school improvement remains a real concern, all the secondary schools are already academies.

Clive Efford: My hon. Friend is making a powerful case. Would she care to reflect on performance in Greenwich, which has become one of the highest-performing education authorities in the country without the enforced academisation of a single primary school, and in which only three secondary schools have become academies? That performance has been achieved without enforced academisation. Parents in our borough are concerned about why they have been removed from the process and will not be consulted about changes to their schools.

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

Geoffrey Robinson: Is my hon. Friend aware that we have an absurd situation in Coventry North West? The Secretary of State refused to meet me about this, but she is aware of it. After having been encouraged to become an academy, Woodlands underwent forced academisation a couple of years ago. Woodlands Academy is not doing well, but instead of putting in an intervention team, as the Prime Minister indicated at Question Time, the academy is being closed and another one is being started a mile up the road. What a waste of resources.

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes a very good point.
Only today, Ofsted has reported that the performance of secondary schools in Reading is “not strong”. Eight out 10 secondary schools in Reading are already academies and are directly accountable to the Secretary of State. Why has she failed to improve those academies, and what is the Government’s school improvement strategy for that and other areas?

Steve Brine: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lucy Powell: I will take some interventions later, but I am going to make some progress.
The Government claim that there are more children today in good or outstanding schools than there were in 2010 as proof that academisation leads to school improvement. However, the Secretary of State knows that, as ever, she is being selective with her figures. The truth is that the vast majority of those new good and outstanding places are in primary schools, where academisation is limited. Moreover, according to Ofsted, the number of pupils in inadequate secondary schools has risen by a staggering 60% over the last four years where academisation has taken hold significantly. Not for the first time, the Government’s selective use of statistics and their dubious link between cause and effect do not withstand any scrutiny. Perhaps that is why the Conservative majority Select Committee on Education recently concluded, after an extensive inquiry:
“Current evidence does not allow us to draw conclusions on whether academies in themselves are a positive force for change”
and:
“There is…no convincing evidence of the impact of academy status on attainment”.

Andrew Percy: I declare an interest as the chairman of governors of Goole Academy, an academy school that is doing very well. In north Lincolnshire, we have had a big academisation programme, and we have gone from having 38% of kids in good and outstanding schools to having 92% of children in such schools. Although I may agree with some of the points that the hon. Lady has made, will she confirm that the Labour party’s position is to support academies? Her speech so far has seemed very anti-academies, and that concerns me as a governor of one.

Lucy Powell: Not at all. As I made clear in my opening remarks, there are some excellent academies and other types of schools. Academisation can be an ingredient of a wider school improvement programme, but the overall evidence is underwhelming at best.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lucy Powell: I am going to make some progress.
Although the Sutton Trust found excellence in a small number of academy chains, it found that the majority were underperforming. Not only is the forced academisation programme evidently not about school improvement, but the Government’s drive on it may greatly diminish what capacity there is in the system for school improvement. The regional schools commissioners, their officials, the energies of school leaders and local authorities will now, as we are already seeing, shift almost entirely away from schools that need improvement towards creating trusts and changing the legal status of a huge number of schools, most of which are already performing well. Indeed, the national schools commissioner and the Department for Education have not even acquired the powers they sought from Parliament in the Education and Adoption Act 2016—they will get them on Monday —to put more schools they deem to be coasting into academy chains. Was that piece of legislation therefore a complete waste of time?

Alison McGovern: My hon. Friend is talking about coasting schools. In the NHS, which had a huge reorganisation that nobody voted for, performance absolutely went down while people had to deal with that big reorganisation. Is she worried, as I am, that this is heading in the same direction? If there is a big reorganisation that nobody has voted for, performance in our schools and the achievement of our children will fall away.

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point. The Government, as they have no other ideas, seem to enjoy such reorganisations.
I will shortly return to some of the very real concerns about the performance of academy chains, but I first want to look at another of the Government’s arguments for forced academisation, which is that it is about autonomy and freedoms. This Government say they are for choice in education. Choice? What choice is there in  a one-size-fits-all policy? What is autonomous about forcing a high-performing school into an academy chain? Will the Secretary of State promise that every outstanding school leader who wants their school to remain as it is can do so? No, she cannot. Where is the autonomy for the small village school, which the White Paper makes clear cannot be a stand-alone academy? I see some nods from Conservative Members to these points. Perhaps this is why even one of the Secretary of State’s main allies, Toby Young, has described this policy as Stalinist. The curriculum and other freedoms described by the Government could easily be given to all schools without the need for a change to legal status.

Gavin Shuker: My hon. Friend is talking about autonomy and democratic control. We have a model of that in the form of co-operative schools, in which parents, pupils and school leaders all work together. Why does she think they should be forced to academise?

Lucy Powell: My hon. Friend makes another excellent point.
On curriculum freedoms, the Secretary of State and I both know that the autonomy the Tories say they are providing just does not exist. During the past five years, parts of the curriculum have been personally drafted by the Education Secretary and then circulated for sign-off among Cabinet Ministers. This sort of ministerial diktat on the curriculum puts schools into a straitjacket. In fact, what we are actually seeing with academisation is a further narrowing of curriculums as schools aim to improve their Ofsted judgments on an increasingly narrow set of measurements.
While the academy programme was originally about bringing new partners and innovation into the system, a wholesale academisation programme will undoubtedly create an increasingly sclerotic and one-dimensional system. It is no wonder that the chief executive of England’s largest academy chain, Academy Enterprise Trust, recently admitted that there is in fact less autonomy for schools in multi-academy trusts than there is for local authority schools.

Steve Brine: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Lucy Powell: If the hon. Gentleman wants to comment on that, I am more than happy for him to do so.

Steve Brine: No, my intervention is not about that, but I thank the hon. Lady for giving way. She is being very generous with her—or probably our—time. She asks us to support the motion on the Order Paper, which is in her name and that of the Leader of the Opposition. This point came up at Prime Minister’s Question Time earlier. She says that the White Paper proposes the removal of parent governors from school governing bodies, but paragraph 3.31 on page 51 of the White Paper makes it very clear that it will not do so. Clearly, she did not have an opportunity to clarify that during PMQs, but will she now take the opportunity to strike that phrase

Lucy Powell: I am happy to clarify that the Government propose to remove the requirement for parent governors. If the hon. Gentleman wants to have a semantic debate  about that, it is in the White Paper, on the page to which he referred. The Secretary of State will have the opportunity to talk about that in a moment.
That brings me to the evidence for and the performance of multi-academy trusts—MATs or chains as they have become better known. It may come as a surprise to many Conservative Members that the Government’s free school and academy agenda has quietly but significantly shifted in policy and practice from stand-alone academies to MAT or chain models. That shift was made clear in the White Paper, in which the policy preference is emphatically for schools to become part of chains. Indeed, Department for Education guidance issued yesterday said:
“We expect that most schools will form or join multi-academy trusts as they become academies.”
There is evidence that schools do better working collaboratively with clusters of schools, especially where they are clustered geographically, as many do in local authority areas.
However, the evidence for the performance of chains so far is mixed. There are some notably good academy chains, but there are many more that are not good. Of the 850 current MATs or chains, only 20 have been assessed, and just three have proved more effective than non-academies. The chief inspector of schools, Sir Michael Wilshaw, wrote to the Secretary of State only a week before the Budget highlighting “serious weaknesses” in academy chains. He went on to say that, in many cases,
“academy chains are worse than the worst performing local authorities they seek to replace”.
To continue with forced academisation of all schools after such a damning letter is frankly irresponsible.
There are major questions for the Government on capacity too. Academy chains are in their infancy and clearly require a closer look, yet the Government want them to take on thousands more schools. Maybe that is why the Secretary of State cannot rule out poorly performing chains being given otherwise good schools under the proposals. One of the main reasons why the track record of many chains is not good is the dearth of any real oversight or accountability.
I share the concerns expressed by many Members of all parties, including my near neighbour, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale West (Mr Brady), who said that we are in danger of creating distant, unaccountable bureaucracies for schools. That the Department for Education, via its small group of schools commissioners, can provide robust oversight and accountability of all schools in the country, is frankly for the birds. It is an impossible job, and it is also not desirable.
The Secretary of State seems hell-bent on cutting out communities, and cutting out parents from having any say over how their child’s school is run. First, let us take the Tories’ plan to scrap the requirement for parents to sit on governing bodies. Abolishing parent governors and removing any role for parents in choosing whether their child’s school becomes an academy and what type of academy it becomes has unsurprisingly been met with a huge outcry. I understand that the Secretary of State wants to take this opportunity to clarify that parents can still be governors. However, as she well knows, under her plans, there will be no requirement any more for governing bodies to have them. I do not think that that is the kind of clarification parents are  looking for. Perhaps she would like to take the opportunity to go further. In any case, she and I both know that in a world of academy chains, the role of the individual school governing body is greatly diminished and key decisions are taken by the two new levels: the board of trustees and the member board above that; bodies that are all too often appointed by the head or the chief executive whom they are supposed to be holding to account.
If we want to avoid more scandals such as Perry Beaches, Kings Science Academy and E-ACT, to name just a few, and if schools are genuinely to be held to account, we need a much more robust governance regime than remote trustee boards appointed by their executive, held to account only by a regional schools commissioner, who is responsible for overseeing thousands of schools.
There are also very real issues on the ground about accountability and responsibility for excluded children, placing children with SEN and admission policies. They all have very real problems under the fragmented schools system. Such a system of oversight also needs to have recourse to the needs of the local community. We cannot have a situation where the needs of the local area are not considered, such as the case of Knowsley, where the last A-level provision across the entire borough is about to be lost, based on a decision taken by one school. There has to be a better-joined up approach to school improvement and local oversight, involving school leaders and councils as well as parents.
The Government claim to lead the devolution revolution, so their centralisation of schools is both wrong-headed and contradictory. In places like my own, Greater Manchester, the Chancellor talks of releasing the combined authority and elected Mayor to create a northern powerhouse. That the skills and education of the next generation are being taken away at the same time shows what a sham that project is.
That point leads me to one last argument the Government make, which is that it would be simpler to have one funding system. That argument is nonsense and certainly does not support the £1.3 billion reorganisation of the schools system that is being proposed. It is also disingenuous of the Government to link the proposals to the fair funding consultation. There is broad support for a fairer funding model, as long as deprived areas and areas that require improvement do not lose out. Forcing all schools to become academies does not need to be linked to that.

Simon Hoare: The shadow Secretary of State was absolutely right to say at the start of her remarks that this should not be a debate about quality. Does she agree that if we reach a certain tipping point in the number of schools recognising the direction of travel and academising, it is sensible to have a discussion about what, if any, future role there should be for LEAs as we understand them, and what the future of education planning will be for the next 20 or 30 years? It seems to me that we have arrived at that tipping point and so it is right to have that debate.

Lucy Powell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his comments, but disagree that we have reached that tipping point. We certainly have not done so with primary schools, as only 17% are academies. A longer-term look would be welcome, but an arbitrary timetable set by the  Chancellor and Prime Minister as part of their legacy is a totally false track. For decades, we have had a multifaceted funding arrangement for our schools. There is no real reason why that cannot continue.
The proposal to force all schools to become academies and part of academy chains is a costly reorganisation that schools do not want or need. Heads are dealing with some very real and big challenges, such as teacher shortages, significant real-terms cuts to their budgets, flux and chaos in assessment, and insufficient school places. Asking them to take time out to change their legal status and to become an academy against their wishes is wrong, and will impact on standards.
This agenda is not about school improvement, as most of the schools affected are already good or outstanding. It is not about more autonomy or more choice, as a one-size-fits-all approach is being forced on all schools. It is not about parents, as they are being cut out of the picture. It is not about devolution, but centralisation. There are real and serious concerns about capacity, oversight and accountability under the Secretary of State’s plans.
There is a growing alliance of heads, governors, parents, teachers, politicians from all parties and many of the original advocates of the academy programme against forced wholesale academisation. Yet this Government, who used to say they were all for choice, profess to be about standards and claim they are on the side of parents and schools, seem to be ploughing on regardless, without a single coherent argument or a shred of credible evidence to support them. They still have time to listen, pause and reflect, and today’s debate gives them a chance to do just that. I commend the motion to the House.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Before I call the Secretary of State to move the amendment, I will let Members know that I will be imposing a five-minute limit on Back-Bench speeches.

Nicky Morgan: I beg to move an amendment, to leave out from “education;” to the end of the Question and add:
“welcomes the transformation in England’s schools since 2010 where 1.4 million more children are now taught in good or outstanding schools; notes that the academies programme has been at the heart of that transformation because it trusts school leaders to run schools and empowers them with the freedom to innovate and drive up standards; further notes that there remain too many areas of underperformance and that more needs to be done to ensure that standards in England match those of its best international competitors; and therefore welcomes the Government’s proposals in its White Paper to further improve teacher quality, ensure funding is fairly distributed, tackle areas of chronic educational failure and devolve more power to heads and school leaders to ensure both they and parents have more of a voice in the running of their schools; and welcomes the commitment to achieve educational excellence everywhere.”
Education is at the heart of this Government’s mission, because we all know that a good education transforms a child’s future. Our White Paper sets out our ambition to deliver real social justice by ensuring that every child gets an excellent education.
The Opposition motion is a deliberate misinterpretation of our proposals to transform England’s schools. As we have already heard, it contains at least two errors, including, as pointed out by my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine), one about parent governors. I am afraid that contributions from the shadow Secretary of State are starting to follow an all too familiar pattern of scaremongering and ignoring the achievements of both the teaching profession and our education system. I note that since her appointment, she has yet to propose a single positive idea, and we heard no more today about how we can raise standards across England’s schools.

Ruth Cadbury: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) on initiating this debate. Will the Secretary of State address what for Brentford and Isleworth in the Borough of Hounslow are the three most pressing problems: first, the recruitment and retention of good quality teachers, particularly in EBacc subjects; secondly, the desperate need to build sufficient secondary school places in time for 2017—unfortunately the Education Funding Agency is the cause of that delay; and finally, the need to ensure that our children have the skills for the local employment market when they leave? Mr Deputy Speaker—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We have got the message.

Nicky Morgan: I am delighted that the hon. Lady is engaging in issues that are of real concern to her constituents, and she is right to do so. I do not know whether she has had a chance to read all the White Paper, but it contains many of the answers, and I will come to on to talk about teacher recruitment and career development in a moment. This Government have so far spent £23 billion on building new accommodation for school places, and we have created 600,000 more school places since 2010.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nicky Morgan: Let me finish answering the hon. Lady’s point. I hope that she has engaged with the new enterprise adviser from the Careers and Enterprise Company in her area, which is doing exactly what she said—engaging many more young people in those careers.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nicky Morgan: Let me make some progress and then I will take more interventions. Given the drafting of the motion, I must ask how much of the White Paper the shadow Education Secretary has read. Only one of its eight chapters is concerned with every school becoming an academy. It is not a schools White Paper, as the motion states; it is an education White Paper, and there is a critical difference.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nicky Morgan: I will take an intervention in a moment.
I have not heard anything from the hon. Lady about the other seven chapters of the White Paper, including our vision to spread educational excellence everywhere,  for the profession to take responsibility for teacher accreditation, and to set high expectations for every child with a world-leading curriculum.

Tim Loughton: I am a supporter of the academies programme, and the experiences of my constituents have been largely—although not exclusively—positive. I am disappointed to see the Opposition go cold on one of their proudest innovations. As a Conservative, I also believe in choice, so will the Secretary of State outline the downside of allowing schools to migrate organically to academy status if they choose, rather than imposing a compulsory and arbitrary timeline on them?

Nicky Morgan: I will come on to that. My hon. Friend is right, and it is perfectly fair to ask that question. We are allowing six years for the change to be made. As a former Education Minister, he will recognise the benefits of allowing front-line professionals—heads, teachers and governors—to run their schools.

Richard Benyon: Like most Conservative Members, I am a great supporter of academies and they have been a great success in my constituency. Will the Secretary of State say something about the capacity of small primary schools, particularly in rural areas, to make that change?

Nicky Morgan: I will, and I recognise that there will be challenges for smaller schools in taking on the responsibilities of becoming stand-alone academy trusts, and we look forward to working with Members across the House on that.

Ian Mearns: Point 4.49 on page 65 of the White Paper states:
“The role of parents is crucial…Our approach puts parents and children first, not through symbolic representation on a governing board, but through engagement with schools.”
What conclusion are parents meant to come to when the experience of parent governors over three decades is wrapped up in the world “symbolic”?

Nicky Morgan: The conclusion they will draw, one which I will come on to, is that we want parents to be engaged not just via governing bodies but through parent councils, through the ability to make complaints and be involved in their child’s education, and through being aware of how their child is taught. There are many more ways, in addition to being parent governors, that they can be engaged.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nicky Morgan: I am going to make some progress.
The truth, as the Government amendment makes clear, is that there is no silver bullet to improve standards in education. Instead, concerted effort and innovation are required on every front. That is what we have done over the past six years. Since 2010, we have seen 1.4 million more pupils in good and outstanding schools as a result of our reforms, translated into reality by an outstanding teaching profession, to raise standards, restore rigour and free heads and teachers to run their schools in a way that works for their students. For all  that we have unlocked excellence, we do not, as I have said many times before, yet have that excellence everywhere. For me, that “everywhere” is non-negotiable.

Karen Buck: The Institute for Fiscal Studies estimates that schools will lose 8% of their funding in real terms over the next five years. What does the Secretary of State say to parents about the unfunded £1 billion cost of enforced academisation when schools are already facing that financial pressure?

Nicky Morgan: Opposition Members need to refresh their maths, because that calculation is completely wrong.
Our White Paper outlines exactly how we are going to ensure excellence everywhere. It makes it clear that while we have the most qualified teaching workforce in our country’s history, we can do more to ensure that every teacher has the support to do the job as well as they can.

Richard Graham: Does my right hon. Friend think it is extraordinary that, despite the volume of noise from the Opposition Benches, not one Labour Member has had the courage to stand up and say there is something fundamentally and totally inaccurate in the Opposition motion? It claims that the Secretary of State and our Government are trying to ban the role of parents on school governing bodies. Every single secondary school in my constituency is an academy and they all have parents on governing bodies.

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend makes an excellent point.

Lucy Powell: rose—

Nicky Morgan: Let me answer the point and then I will invite the shadow Education Secretary to clarify what the Opposition motion actually says. My hon. Friend is absolutely right. There are two errors in the motion. The first is that it says we are abolishing the role of parent governors. We absolutely are not. The second is that we will force all schools to join multi-academy trusts. That is also not the case.

Lucy Powell: This may be a semantic argument, but does it not say in the White Paper that the Secretary of State is removing the requirement for parent governors? Is the Secretary of State removing the requirement—yes or no?

Nicky Morgan: Let me just remind the hon. Lady what her motion says. [Interruption.] Opposition Members do not want to listen.

Lindsay Hoyle: If we are going to ask a question, let us hear the answer.

Nicky Morgan: I do not think they want to hear the answer, because they do not want to hear the clarification. [Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: I want to hear your answer, Secretary of State. Come on!

Nicky Morgan: I am very grateful to you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
The shadow Education Secretary’s motion states:
“the Schools White Paper”—
it is not a schools White Paper—
“proposes the removal of parent governors from school governing bodies”.
It does not. [Interruption.] If the hon. Lady, in drafting her motion, cannot put all the words from the White Paper in the motion, then frankly she needs to go back and do her English lessons.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nicky Morgan: I am going to make some progress.
It is important that hon. Members hear what is in the White Paper. We are outlining reforms of how teachers are trained and accredited, which, alongside the establishment of a new college of teaching and a new framework for professional development, will help to put teaching where it belongs—on a par with other professions such as medicine and law. It outlines our commitment—[Interruption.] I am not going to give way, because I am going to set out what is in the White Paper for the benefit of hon. Members, some of whom on the Opposition Front Bench clearly have not read it. It outlines our commitment—[Interruption.] I have just said I am not going to give way. It outlines our commitment—[Interruption.] Honestly, Mr Deputy Speaker, I think they are deaf. The White Paper outlines our commitment to make sure that school funding is fairly distributed—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: I want to hear both sides. If we cannot hear it, what about the people who are listening out there? Let us try to keep it in order, because this is a very important debate that affects all our constituents, whichever side of the argument we are on.

Nicky Morgan: As I was saying, the White Paper outlines reforms of how teachers are trained and it outlines our commitment to make sure that school funding is fairly distributed across the counties, ending the gross inequities and distortions, so that heads and parents can have the confidence that the same child with the same characteristics and the same costs receives the same level of funding. It reaffirms our commitment to ensure that every single child reaches their potential, from stretching the most able to supporting those who, for whatever reason, have fallen out of mainstream education. It proposes a bold new strategy, which I think all Members should welcome, to tackle areas of chronic underperformance through new educational achievement areas that will target school-led improvement support from national leaders of education, teaching schools and the national teaching service in the most needed areas.

George Howarth: As the Secretary of State is aware, the last sixth-form A-level provision in Knowsley in Garston and Halewood has now been withdrawn by the academy concerned, so she will appreciate that there is concern about that issue in Knowsley. Will she explain why she has refused to meet my hon. Friends the Members for Garston and Halewood (Maria Eagle) and for St Helens South and Whiston (Marie Rimmer) and me to discuss our concerns?

Nicky Morgan: Of course we will meet them, and the Schools Minister has agreed to do so.
The hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) has said previously that she was proud of Labour’s academy programme, which transformed a small number of failing schools. [Interruption.] I am sorry, I intended to give way to my hon. Friend.

Steve Brine: That is very kind of my right hon. Friend; she is being very generous. She knows that as an MP from Hampshire, where 85% of our schools are good or outstanding. I have many questions about this policy, but if I were to sum up the concerns expressed to me by local teachers, it would be with the word “confusion”. They are confused about why something that is so obviously not broken needs fixing. My concern, which I am sure my right hon. Friend can dispel, is that we must not allow the bad to become the enemy of the good. What would her advice be to Hampshire, where the numbers converting to academy status are relatively low because schools are getting a good service from the existing local education authority? Is there any reason why Hampshire should not create, for instance, a new independent organisation, through which services that our schools—including those that are already academies —so value can continue to be delivered?

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend very much. He is absolutely right to say that there is a new role for local authorities, for talented individuals in local authorities to set up their own multi-academy trusts to provide services to schools and to build on the excellence that we already have. I shall set out why we think that schools run by front-line professionals is the best and most sustainable model for raising standards for all pupils.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nicky Morgan: I am going to make some progress. Many Members wish to speak, and because of the noise I have not been able to set out exactly what is in the White Paper.
Why not spread the transformation that we have seen via academies across the country to enable excellence for every child? One of the first things we did in the last Government was to turbo-charge Lord Adonis’s academy programme. We saw how autonomy gave strong sponsors the freedom and flexibility they needed to turn around failing schools, and we saw no reason why “good” and “outstanding” school leaders should not have that freedom as well. The White Paper proposes the next phase in our reforms to empower heads and teachers, to make sure that schools are run by those who know them best, to enable greater collaboration and co-operation, and to give parents and local communities more of a say in the running of their schools by moving over the next six years towards a system where every school is an academy.

Richard Drax: There is no doubt that we all want the best for our children. In Dorset, we have both types of school: state-run schools and academies. May I suggest caution as we proceed because a “one cap fits all” approach always makes me nervous? A natural progression from one to another, as suggested by some of my colleagues, is probably the best way to go, rather than imposition.

Nicky Morgan: I entirely understand what my hon. Friend says, based on his experiences. I have had the benefit of visiting schools across the country, so I know that despite schools becoming academies, there are lots of different models, with different sizes of schools and different opportunities for heads, leaders and teachers. There are big schools, small schools, schools in collaboration, schools working formally together, special schools, and schools with alternative provision. We have an amazing education system. The collaboration that is going on should be welcomed and celebrated.

Jason McCartney: I want to join many Labour Members in talking positively about the transformative effects that academies have had in our constituencies. I am particularly proud of Colne Valley High School, Marsden Junior School and Moor End Academy. However, I am a Conservative because I believe in choice. Does the Secretary of State agree that we should put our trust in parents and governing bodies, and will she please look again at the word “forced”?

Nicky Morgan: I, too, trust parents and governing bodies. 0020yI note that there is an appetite across the country for parents, governing bodies, heads and teachers to take more responsibility for their schools, and, rather than being told what to do by local authorities, to make the real choices that are best for their schools, their pupils and their communities. I look forward to engaging in that debate with my hon. Friend.

Edward Leigh: rose—

Nicky Morgan: I will take one last intervention.

Edward Leigh: I think the Secretary of State will confirm that we are talking about a White Paper. I know that she will listen carefully to colleagues, but will she also work with Conservative-controlled county councils such as Lincolnshire, which have a wonderful record of keeping small primary schools open? The possibility of their closing is what we are fearful about. May we, at the end of this process, have a compromise whereby county councils will not necessarily be forced to give up control of their small primary schools? It is essential for them to be kept open in rural areas. I know that the Secretary of State wants to proceed in a spirit of compromise, and does not wish to force anything on anyone.

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. In fact, I met some members of the Local Government Association and council leaders this morning to discuss exactly that issue. They welcomed the moves that we are making to clarify how the system will look in the future, and also the option of supporting schools which are providing excellent services, because there is nothing to stop the provision of those services from continuing. We will, of course, have more discussions as the programme proceeds.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nicky Morgan: I am going to make progress now, because a great many Members wish to speak in the debate.
As I have said, the academies programme reflects our core Conservative belief that public services should be run by front-line professionals. That means heads, teachers and governors running our schools. International evidence shows that autonomy of schools is linked to improved performance, and that an autonomous system must include strong school leadership and accountability. Academic studies show that, for instance,
“test scores are higher when schools manage their own budgets and recruit and select their own teachers”.
Schools do not have to follow a single way of doing things. Each school can develop a different approach that works for its pupils. Academies are better for teachers because they have greater freedom to innovate, and heads can reward them for their excellence. That freedom means that they can set pay, which enables them to attract and retain good teachers. Academies are better for pupils because it is easier for teachers to share best practice and take advantage of new opportunities, and for Governments to intervene if any evidence is found that schools are failing.
As we have said before, we want parents to be more involved in their children’s education, not less. As the Prime Minister said earlier, we are not suggesting, and have never suggested, that parents should no longer sit on governing bodies. We support the idea of parents being school governors. Many already play a valuable role in governance, and parents will always be encouraged to become governors or trustees.
However, there are other ways in which parents can be involved. For instance, the Flying High Trust in Nottinghamshire has a local governing body for each of its academies, with three elected parent representatives who receive not only an induction, but ongoing development so they can be really clear about their role in ensuring that the schools continue to be linked to the communities that they serve. We will also introduce more regular surveys of parental satisfaction, and display the results alongside examination results.
One issue that has not been addressed so far is the lack of intervention by some local authorities in schools that are failing or coasting. There are 42 local authorities that have not appointed an interim executive board since 2006, and 45 that have not issued warning notices since 2009.

Andrew Percy: rose—

Nicky Morgan: I will give way to my hon. Friend. [Interruption.]

Andrew Percy: I am pleased that this is such a popular intervention.
My right hon. Friend has just referred to the role of local authorities. Some authorities have clearly frustrated the academy process, but that has not been the case in North Lincolnshire. May I commend to my right hon. Friend the model of educational standards boards that we have established there? Even post-academisation, the local authority accepts that these children are our children and we have an ongoing responsibility for them. The authority has concerns about a forced academisation programme, as indeed it should, but will my right hon. Friend look closely at a system that accepts that these children are our children whatever school they are at?

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am still looking forward to visiting his constituency at some point to meet teachers in his area. I will of course look at these models. The achieving education excellence areas that we outlined in the White Papers may be a suitable model.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nicky Morgan: I will take more interventions in a moment.
We have already been shown to respond quickly in the minority of cases where academies underperform. To date we have issued 154 formal notices to under- performing academies and free schools and changed the leadership in 129 cases of particular concern. The powers introduced under the Education and Adoption Act 2016 will allow us to intervene swiftly from day one—much more quickly than happened under many local authorities.

Stephen Timms: Will the Secretary of State not allow parents a say in whether their local school becomes an academy?

Nicky Morgan: We had that debate when the Education and Adoption Act was going through. We recognise that many new sponsors will involve parents, rightly, and we will encourage that in the academisation process.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nicky Morgan: The hon. Member for Manchester Central asked why we were doing this now. On current trajectories, three quarters of secondary and a third of primary schools will be academies by 2020, even if we did not do anything else. That will, as my hon. Friend the Member for North Dorset (Simon Hoare) said, make it increasingly difficult for local authorities to manage an expensive bureaucracy with fewer and fewer schools. As I have said, we will work with local authorities to ensure that they are able to enter partnerships and work with schools.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Nicky Morgan: Something else that the Opposition have deliberately failed to understand is that this policy is fully funded. We have over £500 million available in this Parliament to build capacity, including recruiting—[Interruption.]

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. In fairness to the Secretary of State, she has given way a lot. If she wants to give way, that is fine, but do not keep clamouring and shouting because I want to get you all in and I will not achieve that.

Nicky Morgan: Thank you, Mr Deputy Speaker.
As I say we have over £500 million available in this Parliament to build capacity, including recruiting excellent sponsors and encouraging the development of strong multi-academy trusts. As ever, however, the back-of-a-fag-packet calculation that the hon. Member for Manchester Central seems so fond of, and that was put out by the Labour party press office, uses grossly inaccurate costings—in one case, for example, erroneously calculating  that the average cost of academisation will be £66,000. In fact, costs per academy have fallen from over £250,000 in 2010-11 to £32,000 today. The cost per academy will continue to fall significantly in the years ahead as we move towards full academisation.

Wes Streeting: The Secretary of State talks about the £500 million available in this Parliament. Will she give an undertaking to publish in great detail the Department’s costings to reassure us that this is indeed a fully funded policy and that all the costs have been fully taken into account? I am afraid to say that her figures seem a bit pie in the sky.

Nicky Morgan: I assure the hon. Gentleman that my figures are absolutely not pie in the sky. We publish a huge amount of information and if he wants to write to me about how much it will cost to academise all the schools in his constituency, I will be happy to respond.

James Berry: rose—

Nicky Morgan: I give way to my hon. Friend.

Hear, hear!

James Berry: I am glad that Members have been waiting for this. In Kingston, we have the best GCSE results in the country, bar the Isles of Scilly, and only one of the schools is not an academy. It is legitimate to have a debate about whether that model should be mandated throughout the country. Does my right hon. Friend agree, however, that whatever the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell) misrepresented, what she did not misrepresent—[Interruption.] I am saying that she did not misrepresent—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: I know he wants to withdraw that immediately.

James Berry: What she did not misrepresent was the guff about asset stripping, privatisation and profit that many of her colleagues have engaged in.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. Mr Berry, we are not being helpful to each other. You are withdrawing the comment about misrepresentation. I think you have got your question across. I am going to hear the Secretary of State. You have withdrawn the remark. That is great. Thank you.

Nicky Morgan: I thank my hon. Friend for his intervention. He is passionate about this programme and about raising standards in schools in his constituency. I join him in that.
Let me refute another falsehood in the Opposition’s motion—that we will force all schools to be part of multi-academy trusts. Schools will not be forced to join a trust with other schools. As it happens, many schools want to join a trust because they can see the benefits. Two thirds of current academies have chosen to be part of multi-academy trusts and of course outstanding schools can set up their own MATs. But to be absolutely clear, we will never make any successful school, large or small, that is capable of operating alone, join a trust.

James Cartlidge: On the Conservative Benches, we are grateful for the fact we have finally made progress on the issue of fairer funding, which is incredibly important—particularly in rural constituencies. Will my right hon. Friend confirm that the progress on fairer funding does not depend in any way on enforced academisation?

Nicky Morgan: My hon. Friend is absolutely right to point out that those on the Opposition Benches had 13 years to sort out the inequities in our school funding system and that we heard absolutely nothing from them. On the trajectories for moving on to the new funding formula, we hope to start in the 2017-18 financial year, and on academisation, we have six years for schools to become academies and to work out the best way for them to do so and the collaboration that that will involve.

Henry Bellingham: I thank the Secretary of State for giving way; she is being incredibly patient and long-suffering. We have many small schools in East Anglia. Can she confirm that, in the procedures for closure, the Secretary of State’s final decision will always remain in place?

Nicky Morgan: Absolutely, but what I do not envisage under this process is the closure of small schools. If they are serving the community well, if they are popular with parents and pupils and if they are providing excellent education, why would we want to close them?
We know that just becoming an academy does not improve results in itself, but it does set heads, teachers and governors free to do the things that increase standards. Our reforms and the hard work of teachers have led to remarkable success—[Interruption.] It is a great shame that the shadow Secretary of State never wants to recognise the success in England’s schools. We still have a long way to go to achieve excellent education everywhere, and we will work with schools and local councils to continue the transformation.
Our White Paper sets out our wider plans for the next five years, building on and extending our reforms to achieve educational excellence everywhere. Where great schools, great leaders and great teachers exist, we will let them do what they do best—help every child to achieve their full potential. Where they do not, we will step in to build capacity, raise standards and provide confidence for parents and children. We will put children and parents first. The Opposition’s motion has no ambition to achieve that. For that reason, I am going to ask the House to reject their motion, to support our amendment and to back our reforms to deliver educational excellence everywhere.

Gerald Kaufman: One of the most morale-destroying assignments that I have had in this House has been to read this White Paper. It is riddled with jargon, with ungrammatical structures and with split infinitives. For this to come from the Department for Education is particularly unacceptable. I come from a family of education. I taught for a short time after I left university, and two of my sisters were teachers all their working lives. I know the challenge of education at first hand. Having read this White Paper, I do not believe that the Department knows what that challenge is.
This 122-page White Paper contains a huge number of issues that we could deal with today, but it is inevitable that we shall concentrate on the forced academisation policy. There is no justification for it, and that is illustrated by the fact that it started in my constituency during the last Parliament. An effort was made to force Wright Robinson College in my constituency to become an academy, and the only reason that that did not happen was that then Secretary of State—now the Secretary of State for Justice—ordered the withdrawal of a warning notice that would have forced Wright Robinson to become an academy.

Rupa Huq: Does my right hon. Friend agree with my constituent Glendra Read, a governor at a school that has fought academisation before, when she says that
“If schools and parents are meant to have ‘freedom’, then our freedom of choice is to remain within”
local authority control?

Gerald Kaufman: That is a valid point.
Wright Robinson College was rebuilt under the Labour Government at a cost of £47 million and is a model structure. I quote from a letter that I received from the headteacher last month:
“On the evening of Tuesday 2 March 2016, I attended a meeting with my Deputies and the Ofsted Team, to receive their detailed feedback on the Section 5 Inspection that took place on 1 and 2 March 2016. I then experienced the proudest moment in my entire professional career when we were told that the College had received the full five ‘Outstanding Judgements’ against the criteria of the new and challenging Ofsted Framework.”
That would not have happened if the Government had had their way.
There was an attempt to turn Birchfields Primary School in my constituency into an academy, but I worked with the staff and governors to prevent that and we won. We do not always win. Not long ago, another school in my constituency, now Cedar Mount Academy, was forced to become an academy in a particularly odious manner because it was obliged to merge with schools that are not even in the city of Manchester. From that came a person called Dana Ross-Wawrzynski, who turned the whole situation into what she called “Bright Futures” for which she pays herself more than £200,000 a year. That is what academisation is about: people making money out of an unnecessary structure that does not benefit pupils.
We read in the White Paper that the agglomerations of schools that would be put into academy groups are in some cases not even in the same county. It is nothing to do with locality, local feeling or local sentiment, and parents will have no voice at all. The Government are to create something called “Parent Portal” through which it is alleged that parents will have a voice, but they will not. They will have no voice in the decision as to which school their child will attend or in the quality of the child’s education. The White Paper offers remedies, one of which is to go to the Department for Education. However, if I write to the Secretary of State, she will send me a courteous letter, but she will not deal with the issue that the parent has raised, because she will say that she deals only with policy, not individual or family issues. Another course parents can take is to go to an ombudsman. I worked for Harold Wilson when he  created the ombudsman system, but can anyone tell me when somebody went to an ombudsman and actually got a result that improved the situation?
The structure the Government are setting out in this White Paper is compulsory. It is not going to give local authorities any voice. It contains a section about the voice of local authorities, but if we actually read it, we see that local authorities do not actually have any voice, except that they are assigned the role of making sure that kids get to a school. Well that is not going to happen with an independent academy run by people who are paid hundreds of thousands of pounds—they will tell the local authority to get lost.
This is not simply about the local authority; it is also about the fact that the Government are going to create 500 free schools. We have free schools in my constituency. We have free schools run by the Church of England, and they are very good. We have free schools run by the Catholic Church, and they are very good. The Muslim community wants to be involved as well, but it will not get involved in this because we will be faced with an edict from this Government, who do not care about public education at all. That is the issue: academies are not about public education; academies are about giving a small number of people authority over millions of people.

Ruth Cadbury: Will my right hon. Friend give way?

Gerald Kaufman: Of course.

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. May I just say that we are very tight for time in this debate?

Ruth Cadbury: What many of us in areas with a growing population were looking for in a White Paper was the ability to bring on new schools quickly. In five years, we have not been able in Hounslow to deliver the community school that is needed. Does my right hon. Friend agree that despite the ability of faith schools and some other academy trusts to develop new schools, the community is excluded?

Gerald Kaufman: My hon. Friend is right about that. The fact is that, certainly in my constituency, where I am heavily involved with the schools, it is not a matter of the Government providing a choice for the parents; it is the Government taking away the choice of parents and putting them into the hands of extremely well-paid bureaucrats. This Government are making a big mistake and they need to think again.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. We are now on a five-minute limit.

Neil Carmichael: This debate is actually about children and the interests of children; it is about making sure that they have opportunities to fulfil their lives. We would not be having a debate like this if local education authorities in the past had delivered opportunities to all children in a proper way—that is an absolute fact.  The Labour Government under Tony Blair would have agreed with me, because they started off the academies programme and they emphasised the importance of, “Education, education, education.”

Wes Streeting: The hon. Gentleman is right to pay tribute to the last Labour Government’s academies plan for what it did for school improvement in the most disadvantaged areas. Surely he would agree with the former Education Secretary Lord Blunkett, who said that the current Government’s approach, which is not based on evidence, risks
“discrediting the entire academy programme”?

Neil Carmichael: Lord Blunkett was correct when he was expressing concern about schools in Yorkshire and wondering why there was not a commission on schools there to deal with the problems that he has identified—that came up in the all-party group on Yorkshire and Northern Lincolnshire—so I think the hon. Gentleman makes a good point well.
We need to think about the current position in our education system. The “long tail of underachievement” report published by Ofsted back in 2012-13 makes it clear what the problem is: there are too many failing schools or coasting schools, particularly in the primary sector. They are the ones letting down young people and causing a problem. When children leave primary school without the ability to read or write, as too many children did back in 2010, they struggle and they continue to struggle in secondary school. The evidence is frightening. Analysis of the data on children who had a bad start shows that they never recover.
We need to think of an alternative way, and the academies programme has delivered success. More than 80% of academies are good or outstanding. That is why it is important to have more academies. However, the framework for academies needs to be carefully explored. It is important for us to understand what a good multi-academy trust looks like, and the Education Committee will be looking into that. That does not mean that all academies should become members of MATs, but it does mean that a good MAT will attract a lot of good schools because of the range of opportunities it provides, the emphasis on partnership, the strength of leadership and so on.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newbury (Richard Benyon) spoke about primary schools, and that is exactly the right subject for us to talk about. We must make sure that primary schools get together, work together and form partnerships. That is why I was pleased to be present when the Association of School and College Leaders and the National Governors Association launched their report entitled, “Forming or Joining a Group of Schools: staying in control of your school’s destiny”. That is about bringing schools together, hopefully through a structure that will benefit their transition from maintained to academy status if that is a direction of travel that they need to take.

Gareth Thomas: Will the hon. Gentleman comment on the issue of choice? Whitmore High School in my constituency was rated outstanding by Ofsted last year and is on the Department’s list of 100 best schools for value added. Why should it be forced to choose to become an academy?

Neil Carmichael: Because we want all schools to be able to be autonomous, to work with other schools and to form relationships which are right for their pupils. We always talk about the worst schools or the best schools, but we should focus on those in the middle. They are the ones that provide most of the education and tend to coast if that is allowed to occur. Too many local authorities have not intervened quickly enough or robustly enough when the situation demanded it. That is the context in which the Secretary of State correctly referred to interim executive boards.
On parent governors, the Government are not saying, as I understand it, that there will no longer be any parent governors. There are two points to make. The obvious one is that they are not being outlawed. Secondly, everyone can be a parent governor. It is not necessary to be a parent in order to be a non-parent governor. That is important. The idea that parent governors are an exclusive source of wisdom may well be right in some schools, but not in all.
One of the reasons why I set up the all-party group on school leadership and governance was that I was concerned that we did not have sufficient skills or all the skills needed for a governing body. We talked about the role of stakeholders, including parent governors. There was general agreement in that group, of which the NGA is the secretariat, was that skills were the most important thing to recruit to a governing body. It is therefore right to talk in the terms that we are using.
I want quickly to mention regional schools commissioners, because they will play a really important role in this. The Education Committee discussed that role with the Department through a formal inquiry, and we will continue to look at it, because as the academies programme develops, of course, we will need to see more scale and capacity through the regional schools commissioners. I put it on the agenda right now that that needs to be considered in the medium term.
Finally, fairer funding is a critical part of the story, because it will give schools more flexibility and ensure that those that have suffered so badly in the past as a result of underfunding get a fairer slice of the funding. Schools should be encouraged to grow when the demand is there, and I think the Department is doing that. Last but not least, we have to think about catchment areas. One of the things that I find stultifying in my area is the county council’s refusal to be a bit more open-minded about catchment areas and the ability a parents to go past one school or whatever as they choose. Those are the points that I wanted to make, and I think that the Education Committee is right—

Lindsay Hoyle: Order. I call Marion Fellows.

Marion Fellows: I stand here as a member of the third party in this House. We will be abstaining this evening, on both the motion and the amendment. However, I am a member of the Education Committee—I sometimes feel that I have international observer status—and, on that basis, I would like to make a few points on the White Paper.
I was very interested to read in the White Paper that the national curriculum will become a benchmark, hopefully to be exceeded. I find that difficult to understand. When  we did our report on holocaust education, we found that it is supported by the Government but not required to be taught in all schools. I find that quite strange. I wonder how far that will pertain if the elements of the White Paper go ahead.
Another interesting part of my work on the Education Committee involved having private discussions with teachers and their representatives on how to attract and retain teachers, which is a very large problem in England. I fail to see how having six years of what is perceived to be forced academisation will help to attract and retain teachers, especially if, as can happen in academies, terms and conditions will not be national, in the sense that I understand it from Scotland.
I find it strange that the forced removal of local authorities from schooling in England, against the wishes of local authorities, parents, governors, trade unions and others, will go ahead, and that the Secretary of State can match giving them new responsibilities with taking away any control they have over what happens in schools.
I also find it interesting, from an international perspective, that it was the Chancellor of the Exchequer who brought this matter to the House in the first instance, followed shortly by the Secretary of State’s White Paper. The Chancellor always makes me think of costs, and I am concerned for English schools, pupils, parents and everyone involved, that the cost of academisation will take away from money spent on teaching children. That is a really important point. I have a background in further education in Scotland so I know that change costs and that focus can sometimes shift.
Finally, the Department for Education is currently unable to present its accounts because of the problems involved in consolidating academies’ accounts with its own. If the academisation of all schools goes ahead, that will create further issues and problems. I think that any delay in publishing accounts for any Government Department is a delay in public accountability.
I realise that this is a very passionate and forceful debate on both sides of the House. I wish all Members well in it, but I will not be taking any further part.

Caroline Nokes: I appreciate the opportunity to participate in this important debate and to follow the hon. Member for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), with whom I served for a while on the Education Committee.
I applaud my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for her statement at the beginning of the White Paper. She says that education
“is a matter of social justice—extending opportunity to every child”.
A headteacher in Romsey wrote to me immediately the White Paper was released, describing it as the best White Paper he had ever read.
As I said, I was a member of the Education Committee until recently, and I have a feeling I might be on my way back at some point. I joined the Committee during work on its 2014-15 Session report into academies and free schools. As part of that inquiry, we met inspirational school leaders and chief executives of academy chains, we visited schools and we met primary heads involved in multi-academy trusts. We did not look just at the  good; we also delved into where academy chains were underperforming. We came up with a report that drew some interesting conclusions.
In Romsey, we have two excellent academies, both of which are converter, stand-alone secondary academies led by great headteachers, to whom I pay tribute for their vision and determination. Today, I have received exhortations from not one constituent but many, asking me to speak out against academies because they are supposedly undemocratic and exclude communities from having an input into how they are run. That is not my experience at all. In fact, I would go further: there is enormous community input into both the academies in Romsey, which go out of their way to involve local businesses, to bring in people from outside to take part in how the school is run, and to give the best opportunities and experiences to their pupils. Both academies are members of the Eastleigh consortium of secondary schools and colleges, and both are real leading lights in sharing best practice and spreading their knowledge and expertise. So, no, I will not speak out against academies, because my experience of them is excellent, and I pay tribute to Heather McIlroy of the Mountbatten School and Jonathan de Sausmarez of Romsey School for the fantastic job they do for Romsey’s children.
However, I must emphasise the conclusions the Select Committee report drew. We do not have to dig far into the report to find the quote given by the hon. Member for Manchester Central (Lucy Powell):
“Current evidence does not allow us to draw…conclusions on whether academies are a positive force for change.”
I fully accept that the report is now a year old, and there will be additional data, so it may now be possible to have a fuller picture. The report certainly called on the DFE to do further research into the impact of academy status on primary schools.
In Romsey and Southampton North, not one primary school has converted to an academy, and that may be for many good reasons. I have certainly spoken to some excellent headteachers—most notably the head of the most outstanding primary school in my constituency, which is repeatedly rated as outstanding by Ofsted—and the response I have consistently received from her as to why the school has not converted is that those involved have looked at the possibility many times and have not thought that it was right for them. They have welcomed the support and the challenge they have had over the years from the local education authority. Far from seeing that as the shackles of local government, they have enjoyed the robust support and challenge they have had from a consistently high-performing children’s services department.
It is of course possible that my view is entirely coloured by the opinions of headteachers who have worked with Hampshire County Council over many years, and that, were the authority less good, I might be faced with headteachers actively seeking liberation from its bounds. However, they have had the freedom to do that, and they have not done so.
In Hampshire, many of our rural schools are already federated, sharing headteachers and best practice incredibly successfully. I point to the example of the brilliant Jo Cottrell, who is executive head of the outstanding  Halterworth Primary School and two smaller village schools in Awbridge and Wellow. I would also like to mention Marcus Roe, head of Ampfield School and of John Keble School in Hursley, which is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Steve Brine).

Steve Brine: On that point, my hon. Friend and I have both had a letter from the aforementioned Mr Roe. John Keble School in Hursley is in the federation she mentioned. I was struck, and I wonder whether she was, by one line in his letter:
“Surely, the model of ‘headteachers know best’”—
which we all agree with—
“also applies to whether we believe academy status is right for us or not.”
As I said earlier, many of my primary schools, like hers, do not believe it is right for them, and they have had the choice to become academies, but they have not exercised it. I wonder whether she noted that line in his letter.

Caroline Nokes: I noted that line and that which said:
“Hampshire has been highly regarded by Ofsted for the excellent work it has done to support children in the county and beyond.”
I appreciate that Hampshire may be able to continue to provide services to schools. I urge my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to look at ways that the good can be exempted from a system of prescription.
I want to emphasise an important element of the Education Committee report. Page 64 states:
“Academisation is not always successful nor is it the only proven alternative for a struggling school.”
This morning I spoke to Ruth Evans, headteacher of Cantell school in Southampton, who has emphasised that Cantell is the fastest improving school in Southampton and rated in the top 5% in the country for value added, but it is not an academy and it has not been able to convert, because of the private finance initiative agreement to which it is bound. What happens to such schools, and how many others are in the same boat? Ruth’s view—I will conclude on this point, because I think she is absolutely right—is that what really matters is the staff and the culture. The school pursues partnerships with its cluster of primary schools and undertakes a peer review to ensure that it is at the forefront of improvement.

Geoffrey Robinson: I am glad to take part in this debate, because there is a situation involving a school in west Coventry that affects my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry South (Mr Cunningham). I have tried to draw the issue to the Secretary of State’s attention and I have asked her for a meeting. It concerns the closure of one academy—it has been a failing academy for a few years—and the setting up of another. The new academy is being given a great amount of Government funding and they are closing what used to be a fine school, but which was turned into an academy under pressure from this Government.
I say to the Secretary of State that academisation in itself solves nothing. It is not a panacea. The case for compulsory academisation does not exist. The Government have no mandate for it and there is no proof that it is a universally popular or effective policy. If the Secretary  of State would accept that, it would be a great step forward and she would have to rethink a major plank of the White Paper.

Bob Stewart: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Geoffrey Robinson: I will not give way, because time is limited and many Members on both sides of the House wish to speak.
If the Secretary of State will not take my word for it, she should listen to the words of wisdom being spoken by her fellow Conservative Members, who also wish to undo the policy. Nobody sees the case for compulsory academisation of all our schools.
The whole point about education should be choice. We agree with that. There is a role for academies—we started them and there is no doubt that they have a role to play. In many instances they have been successful and stimulating and have set an example, but we cannot make one size fit all, and nor should we try to do so. If that is going to be the Government’s national policy, it will be a failure. I fear that one of the consequences will be similar situations to that in Coventry, where one school is being forced to close and another academy is going to start up barely a mile down the road. It does not have places and there is no planning or demand. The main demand for the school down the road comes from the parents of children at the school that is going to close, who are looking for places that do not exist in the new academy. There is a lack of planning and forethought. That is what happens when someone believes they have found the holy grail or the secret key that can unlock the solution for all schools.
I beg the Secretary of State to think again, because the situation in Coventry is as follows: we are closing one school, which is a sports academy, and we are eliminating a boys-only school, a girls-only school and parental choice.

Nicky Morgan: indicated dissent.

Geoffrey Robinson: It is no good the Secretary of State shaking her head, because every single one of those statements is correct. We are eliminating and restricting parental choice and we do not even know what we are going to replace it with. The policy is bound to fail. If it is forced on the rest of the country, I fear that the situation in Coventry will be replicated throughout England and Wales, to the great detriment of those people whose interests the Secretary of State is trying to promote, and to the extinction of choice as we know it, which is fundamental to improvement in the education system. We accept and agree with what the Secretary of State preaches but in practice denies.

Lucy Allan: I am glad that this fascinating debate has been secured, and I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate. I particularly wanted to take part because in Telford, we have recent experience of the damaging effect of failing secondary schools on our young people. We have also had the beneficial effects of tackling the underperformance of those failing secondary schools by placing them in an established multi-academy trust chain, and I want to share that positive experience with the House.
Last year, four secondary schools in Telford were placed in special measures, having received inadequate ratings from Ofsted, and the education of 2,000 children was affected. In Telford, we have significant pockets of deprivation and disadvantage. I am sure we all agree that a good education is an open door to opportunity for young people to build a future and get on, no matter what their circumstances, where they live or where they come from. I want the best possible education for every young person in my constituency.
There is no doubt that we have an added responsibility to young people who come from the least affluent backgrounds. Underachievement in school is a massive hindrance. It reinforces disadvantage and we should never stand by and accept it as inevitable. Good education is about far more than just exam results. I am sure that if any of us was asked to give a definition of good education, we would include strong leadership, excellent governance, high expectations of our young people, the instilling of a sense of self-worth and personal responsibility, and the creation of an environment in which children feel cared for and valued. I am sure that we also agree that achieving a minimum of five A to C grade GCSEs, including maths and English, is an essential entry point to jobs, training, apprenticeships and further education. Without that tool, our young people in Telford will be left behind.
In Telford, all four of the secondary schools that were judged inadequate fell below the Government’s 40% floor target. Two of the schools fell below one third, and in one school almost three quarters of children failed to achieve five good GCSEs, including maths and English, in consecutive years. Overall, 80% of children in receipt of the pupil premium leave school without five GCSEs. Those children have been failed for a lifetime.
So, what did we do in Telford? What happened to solve the problem? The Department for Education got involved smartish. The schools joined an established multi-academy chain entirely free from local authority involvement. There was a full restructure of staff, shared leadership, new timetables, new day structures, new approaches to behaviour, and new leadership and governance. It is early days, and I will not claim that all the problems have been solved, but an early DFE monitoring visit found excellent examples of good practice. Two successful Ofsted visits showed the impact of the academy trust and its leaders. Those strengths were identified. In fact, Ofsted said—it is important to put this on record—that the academy trust chain had
“played a crucial role in removing barriers to the academy’s progress…the structures, mechanisms and foundations are now in place to begin to secure sustainable improvements.”
We can see from Telford’s example that the academy structure makes it easier to put in place the essentials to drive up standards, and it allows underperformance to be tackled. That is what matters, so I support the Government’s determination to ensure that every child has the best start in life, a good education and the opportunity to be the best they can be.
I sound a note of caution on primary schools. We have many good primary schools—17—in Telford. Many teachers and parents tell me that they do not want unnecessary change or interference where our children are thriving and achieving. That is what matters. Do our children thrive and achieve in Telford? If they do, that is a good thing.

Dawn Butler: I want to pick up on what the hon. Member for Telford (Lucy Allan) has said. All Members, from all parts of the House, strive to make sure that every school is a good school, and that children are taught by great teachers. Academisation of schools does not, in itself, achieve that. It is important that we make that clear and that we do not pretend otherwise.
I would like to send my condolences to the family of John Cope, a former regional secretary of the GMB, who passed away yesterday. John fought long and hard for teachers all across north London, fighting to ensure that all schools were good ones, and those schools always welcomed John to their school. This might be wide of the mark—I could be completely wrong—but as I read and tried to make sense of the White Paper, I thought that part of this policy might be about stopping trade unions supporting their members. Now, more than at any other time, the one thing that will keep people —whether they work as a teacher, a cleaner, a dinner lady or a teaching assistant—connected and united in an educational establishment is the trade union movement. Rest in peace, John. The fight continues.
In Brent, we have five academies. Of all our other schools, only one is rated inadequate. The schools that became academies under Labour were failing schools that became academies in order to turn themselves around, which has indeed worked. That was a process for schools, rather than something that was forced on them. That point will be made throughout this debate.
In 2015, a parent contacted me in complete distress, saying, “They are forcing us to turn into an academy.” She asked me to go to a meeting, and I said, “Yes, not a problem.” I was quite surprised at how distressed all the parents and teachers were at the meeting. I was careful to obtain all the facts before forming an opinion, because that is what we do. I was told that, despite the objections of the unions and the parents, no proper information had been given to them. The parents wanted to have a ballot—a secret one, even—and they were willing to pay for it, but the school would not allow that to happen. Strikes and marches by the parents followed, and the kids were distressed, because the school was forced to turn into an academy. I worry that that will follow when other schools are forced to turn into academies.
Councillor Melinda Tilley, the cabinet member for education on Oxfordshire County Council, said on BBC Radio 4’s “Today” programme last month:
“It means a lot of little primary schools will be forced to go into multi-academy trusts and I just feel it’s the wrong time, in the wrong place. I’m fed up with diktats from above saying you will do this and you won’t do that. This is not why I became a Conservative. It makes my blood boil. I’m put in a position where I can’t protect schools. One size does not fit all. I think they’ve gone bonkers.”

Cat Smith: My hon. Friend is making some very good points about small rural schools. I do not believe that the Secretary of State addressed those points when she was questioned by MPs from her own side of the House. I have schools in my constituency with as few as 13 pupils. What kind of academy trust will want to take on a school that small?

Dawn Butler: That is a good point, and my hon. Friend makes it very well. The chief executive of England’s largest multi-academy trust, AET, has admitted that there is less autonomy for schools in academy trusts than there is for schools that are maintained by local authorities. He has even said that schools will not be able to opt out if the ethos does not fit that of the school. That is a problem.
The Secretary of State talks about money going into schools. It is a fact that there has been a cut in the amount of money going into schools. Actually, with the loss of the contextual value added funding, many schools have lost up to £800 per pupil, and the pupil premium has done nothing to bring that money back into the school system. It is absolutely outrageous.
I have been trying to find out what the proposal is really about. It is certainly not about ensuring that all schools are good schools and that we have good education for kids in Brent. Local authorities will pick up the legal cost of doing this. I do not know what the cost will be, because we are apparently wrong. We had it as £1.3 billion, but the Secretary of State says something different. It would be nice to know definitively what the figure will be.
What I can say is that we will lose £260 million in London schools alone. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tooting (Sadiq Khan), who is the Labour candidate for London Mayor, has not only said that he will work
“with councils to challenge coasting or poor-performing schools”,
but that it is
“a scandal that more than 44,000 children in London are taught in classes of more than 30—with some taught in classes of more than 40.”
He says:
“I’ll play a city-wide strategic leadership role, seeking to make a big dent in the school places crisis.”
I urge the Government to stop and listen to the teachers who are staying in the profession, as well as to those who are leaving it, and just do a U-turn on this flawed White Paper.

Will Quince: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Brent Central (Dawn Butler). I declare any necessary interests as my wife is a primary school teacher.
I want to raise my concerns and those of my constituents about the proposal to require every school to become an academy by 2020. Let me be clear: I believe that there is a place for academies in our education system. They have played a part in helping to turn around schools and improve educational attainment for children throughout the country, although I do not believe that that improvement can be attributed solely to their being academies. I am not convinced that academies are the only direction for our education system or that they will somehow deliver the next great leap in academic results. First and foremost, there is no evidence that academies are automatically better than state-maintained schools. Indeed, there are plenty of good and outstanding schools throughout the county, including in my constituency, which are maintained by the local authority.
Furthermore, I fear that forcing schools to become academies, especially when they do not want to, will be an unnecessary shake-up for the school and the local council.

Bob Stewart: Academies can be really good—for example, the Harris academy in Beckenham, which has improved greatly. However, we are considering a White Paper—an evolving document for discussion—not a directive, and I disagree with the idea if parents and governors do not want it to happen.

Will Quince: Call me old-fashioned, but I hold the view that if a school is well governed, well run and performing well, it should be left alone and allowed to do its job.
No one quite knows what the outcome of the proposal will be, especially given that there seems to be a rather disjointed approach to the role of local authorities. We are telling local authorities that they are no longer responsible for schools, but still responsible for home-to-school transport and admissions. They are expected to be champions for parents when they are still responsible for the two most contentious matters when it comes to schools.
I do not believe that moving the control of schools from local authorities, which are run by elected representatives, to unelected regional schools commissioners makes schools more accountable to parents. We need decentralisation of education, which gives more control to teachers and parents. The proposal risks centralising power in Whitehall and giving power to unelected bureaucrats.
As my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) pointed out, we are considering a White Paper, and there is therefore time to put the proposals on hold and have a rethink. The White Paper is unquestionably generating a lot of uncertainty in our schools, and we should be in no doubt that the public have concerns.

Michael Tomlinson: Does my hon. Friend agree that there is no doubt and there should be no concern about the role of parents as governors? I declare an interest as a parent and a parent governor. It is clear from the White Paper that parents will be encouraged to continue to serve on governing boards.

Will Quince: On that one point I am very disappointed by the Opposition’s motion. I largely agree with their points, and, given that we are talking about a White Paper, I could even have supported the motion, had it not been factually incorrect. [Interruption.] There is no question but that it is factually incorrect. It has a word missing. We do not mark exam papers on the basis of, “It was what they meant to say, so we’ll give them an A.”

John Bercow: Order. I am sorry—the hon. Gentleman is a most courteous individual, but we must now move on. There are 21 remaining colleagues who wish to speak and probably fewer than 50 minutes. There will now be a three-minute time limit in a bid to ensure that we maximise the input.

Catherine McKinnell: As a member of the Education Committee, I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute this afternoon.  As a member of the Petitions Committee, I am aware of the significant public interest in this issue, with petitions about it that have more than 150,000 signatures. But most importantly, as a constituency MP and a parent of primary-age children, I am in a state of real disbelief at the frankly ludicrous proposal to force all schools to go down the academy route by 2020. I know my view is shared by many constituents, parents, teachers and support staff across Newcastle upon Tyne North. As with so many of this Government’s policies, it is entirely unclear what problem this policy is intended to fix. It is an absolute distraction from many of the real issues that the Education Secretary should be dealing with urgently.
Next week, parents across the country will find out whether their child has a school place in September, through an admissions process that is increasingly difficult for local authorities to manage. Councils such as Newcastle find themselves in the impossible position of being unable to consider establishing new community schools to cope with existing demand while being legally responsible for ensuring places. Demand is only going to increase given the increase in house building expected during the next few years, with 21,000 new homes across Newcastle by 2030. I genuinely want to understand this, and so would like an explanation of how local authorities are going to ensure that there is new school capacity at the right time in the right places under the current proposals. Any enlightenment from the Minister would be welcome.
The White Paper states that local authorities will retain a role in
“Ensuring every child has a school place…including that there are sufficient school, special school and alternative provision places to meet demand.”
But the Local Government Association has highlighted that
“Under these new plans, councils will remain legally responsible for making sure that all children have a school place, but it is wrong that neither they nor the Government will have any powers to force local schools to expand if they don’t want to.”
As for other pressing issues, the Education Secretary should turn her attention to teachers’ increasing workloads and the recruitment crisis. It is little wonder that SCHOOLS NorthEast has said that schools across the region
“face an uphill battle with nearly 9 in 10…of Head Teachers reporting issues with recruiting staff in the past year.”
Teachers feel overworked and underappreciated.
Instead of dealing with those crucial issues, the Government are focusing on a top-down forced reorganisation that will see 20,000 schools come under their direct control. The Department for Education cannot even file its own accounts to Parliament on time, so can it really cope with that additional workload? It is presiding over a total fiasco with the new key stage 1 and 2 tests, with information about delivery given very late to teachers. Finally, at a time when we are reading that many schools in poor areas are now “running on empty”, who is going to pay for all this?

Richard Graham: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), who I think must have been reading a different White Paper from the one that I have read.
I start by tackling a comment from the shadow Secretary of State. In moving the motion, she made some totally unexceptional remarks, many of which I agreed with, but said that the White Paper was not about school improvement or autonomy but about a forced ideology that was not necessary. Let me tell her and others about my ideology on this issue. She and other Opposition Front Benchers occasionally use the word “ideological” in a negative and derogatory way. I will quote from the Google result:
“An ideology is a body of ideas, and those who agree with the main idea of something take an ideological stand to support it.”
My ideology on education is very simple: everyone should have access to good education. One aspect of our job as MPs is to help to find way that give the strongest likelihood of our schools’ providing that. I am happy to take a stand to support that. I suspect that the shadow Education Secretary is, and I hope that every Member across the House is. That is what the White Paper aims at.
My right hon. Friend the Education Secretary has spelled out very clearly that, through the White Paper, she is trying to achieve a discussion on how to resolve the problem that, as she says, there are
“too many pockets of educational underperformance—areas where too many young people miss out on the chance to benefit from the best possible education. This is deeply unfair.”
That starting point should be shared by all of us. This is a White Paper, not legislation—a point that many of our constituents do not seem to have grasped in their emails about the issue. We should be looking at what ideas are proposed in the White Paper.
Several points of interest have not yet been mentioned, including an independent college of training, which must be a good idea. We would all like to know more details about changes to qualified teacher status, but it is an interesting idea. The White Paper mentions a fairer national funding formula—surely we are all in favour of that, although it has not yet been mentioned by any Opposition Member so far today.
The debate has focused on two aspects: changes to a skill-based requirement on the selection of governors; and the conversion of schools into academies. Let me discuss that briefly—I will have to be very brief because you reduced the time limit by two minutes, Mr Speaker, just before I got up to speak. I have time to say only that anyone who listens to this debate must understand that parents can, should and will have a key role on the governing boards of academies, and the business of whether all schools should be converted to academies can wait for a fuller debate.

Naseem Shah: Let me start with an old proverb: “It takes a village to raise a child.” Local parents and communities must be at the heart of decision making about their children, to increase accountability across schools. Constituencies such as mine have added complexities regarding what teachers face because of community demographics and socio-economic factors. I cannot go and sell to my community and constituents a White Paper that is not based on evidence or the needs of that local community, or that  contains unnecessary costs that will not tackle deep-rooted issues of failure and falling educational standards. Funds have been cut for pupils and pupil places, and in my constituency some schools have not had funding through the schools building programme allocated to them and have had to stop their work. We must address such issues in my local schools.
We need investment, not drawn-out and expensive governance change. Structural changes do not tackle poor attainment—in fact, they detract from it, and that does not support headteachers and teachers in leading their staff and developing our children and their education. Instead, we focus on targets, as opposed to achievements and developing our children, and that is simply not good enough.
As many Members have highlighted, the Government have not hit on a magic formula. We have seen massive outcome disparity from academisation, and massive attainment difference in the chains into which the academy is incorporated, in much the same way that different local authorities get different results. Governance changes are not a substitute for front-line investment or an answer for failures, and I urge the Government to rethink them.
In conclusion, I like cooking and my mother always says to me, “If you’re going to cook a curry and it is not right, changing the pot and getting a fancy one will not fix the curry.” We need to get the ingredients right for this, and those in the White Paper do not make that curry for my constituents in Bradford West. I urge the Secretary of State to rethink this issue.

Julian Knight: I rise primarily in praise of academies, because in my constituency their spread has been transformative. We have some of the finest schools in the country, and I want the system that has brought us such success to be offered to many more children across the nation. In my constituency, six of our seven state schools have achieved academy status, and all save one produced results that greatly exceed the national average. The other one began to convert to academy status only in 2015, since when Ofsted reports that it is making very good progress.

Rebecca Pow: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way because I know that he is pressed for time, but I wish to back up what he has said, particularly for the secondary system. For example, in Taunton Deane in January, Court Fields School, which had problems, became an academy and was highlighted by Ofsted inspectors as having made vast improvements, including a 20% increase in maths results.

Julian Knight: My hon. Friend has added grist to my mill.
The greatest success in my constituency has been Tudor Grange Academy, which for four consecutive years has registered more than 90% of its students as achieving five A to C grades, including in maths at the end of year 11. We also have our first primary school, St James, which I am pleased to report has risen above the national average for reading, writing and mathematics. It is clear that putting teachers and headteachers in charge is a recipe for success. Those Solihull school  success stories should give pause to all those who deny that academies can make a powerful, positive difference to our young people.
I believe that Solihull, with its very high levels of academisation and excellent results, is a model for the future of our education system. A first-rate school system is essential if our children are to compete in the globalised economy they will grow up in. In too many instances, the old structures have failed to help talented young people to fulfil their potential.
At a time of great pressure on public finances, it is to the Government’s credit that they have chosen to invest so heavily in education. However, I have certain concerns about the academisation proposals with regard to rural primary schools. I would like to see whether, in further discussions, we can allay concerns about whether those schools are the right size and whether the process can be managed effectively over the extensive six-year time period.
In the main, the reforms give school leaders the freedom and authority to find educational solutions that work best for them, based on their first-hand experience and understanding. In particular, they are a vote of confidence in our teachers. As my right hon. Friend pointed out, teachers will now be afforded the same status as other professionals, such as those in law, medicine and the sciences.
Our move away from the top-down approach to reform has other benefits. A sad consequence of the central control of our school system has been an unhelpful level of standardisation. In pursuit of the laudable goal of equality, the drive has too often been to make sure that every school is the same. Our predecessors knew far less than we do about how pupils learn. We are now aware that children learn in many different ways and that a one-size-fits-all approach leaves too many far behind.

John Pugh: Einstein said that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing again and again and expecting a different outcome. At the start of every Parliament somebody suggests that, before political capital is exhausted, there should be an attempt to restructure a major public service, with the hopeful, if naive, expectation that delivery will somehow be improved.
In 2010, the health service was turned upside down for reasons that people have now largely forgotten. Well, that all turned out so well! In 2016, it is the turn of the school and education sector. To be fair, the radical change started in 2010 with the introduction of the Academies Act 2010. That Act was rushed through the Commons before the ink was dry on the coalition agreement. Even then, there was hostility to parental involvement. I moved an amendment to guarantee a parental ballot if governors were undecided on conversion to academy status. It was voted down on 26 July 2010. It was supported, incidentally, by Ed Balls and the Labour party, but by too few of my own party, who at that stage had a misplaced faith in the good intentions of their coalition colleagues.
To be fair to the Government, they are entirely serious in their attempt to raise standards and equalise life chances. I want to give them credit for that. However, they seem to have forgotten that all the research shows  that the really decisive factor in a child’s educational outcome is having the parents onside, empowered and involved. They seem to have forgotten that the evidence on the benefits of academisation is at best equivocal. They seem to have forgotten that money used on the process of academisation cannot also be used for revising the school formula—it cannot be allocated and spent twice. They also seem to have forgotten their own legislation on coasting schools, because they are actually abolishing schools in name. They seem to have forgotten the painful progress we have all made on the national curriculum, because it simply will not apply.
I am struggling to explain such selective amnesia, such bewitchment of minds. I have decided that two irrational forces are at play. One is a magical belief in the benefits of renaming schools and altering their governance. Whatever the educational problem—slow progress, poor behaviour, low aspiration—the answer, the universal magic, is academisation. The second irrational force that has to be acknowledged is the active distrust, positive dislike and contempt in current Conservative and Government culture for local councils. My local primaries are high achieving. They are happy with their LEA relationship. They are busy, hard-pressed and fun to be at. To them, this change is disruptive, unwelcome and—by any measure—utterly pointless.

Flick Drummond: We all agree that every child needs an excellent education, but I was disappointed to read the Opposition motion, which attempts to stall our efforts to deliver it. Academisation has been a lifeline for some schools in my constituency. For many years, lots of schools in my constituency were at the bottom of the league tables, and the local authority was failing to bring about improvement. The new director of education in Portsmouth city council is making a positive difference, but that does not wipe the slate clean for the many children who have been let down.
Charter Academy in my constituency is one example of where academisation has been an enormous and immediate success. Threatened with closure and placed in emergency measures in 2009, as St Luke’s School, Charter Academy is now one of the most improved schools in the country. Free from local authority controls, the teachers and leadership of Charter Academy, with parents included, have shown that putting more power into the front line has vastly improved the life chances of its pupils, who are largely from the most deprived area.
Ark Ayrton is a primary school in the same deprived area. The head was not happy about being forcibly academised but she later said that she had wished it had happened a lot earlier. She now gets the professional development, including resources and the ability to innovate, that was lacking before. Giving teachers power and the ability to teach in their own unique style is one of the mainstays of the new curriculum. I hope that these freedoms will attract more teachers into teaching. That is one reason why I welcome the freedom of headteachers to set their own pay and conditions, and I hope that the freedoms will include job sharing and flexible hours.
In fact, I would like to see a much more flexible working day, with schools able to extend the working day, as mentioned in the White Paper, so that pupils can  have a wider range of education. For example, giving those not doing art at GCSE or A-level the chance to continue this important subject can be of great benefit. The same applies to music, sport and many other subjects. I hope that teachers will be given more time during the day to mark books and plan lessons or continue their professional development, rather than spending evenings and weekends working.
The message is clear: teachers up and down the country have already risen to the challenge. If we give teachers and school leaders the freedom to deliver an excellent education, we will see a continual improvement in our country’s education system. I welcome the White Paper and look forward to working with schools in Portsmouth to become an outstanding city for education.

Graham Jones: I would like to put on the record the fact that my partner is a school governor at St John’s in Baxenden.
The point I want to raise is the negative impact that forced academisation will have on grant-maintained local authority nurseries. In an answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull North (Diana Johnson) on 22 March, the Minister said—I summarise—that at some point in the future, the Government would think about whether state nurseries would be forced to become academies.
As of 4 March this year, there were 41,227 young pupils in grant-maintained nurseries at 406 nursery schools in England. Some authorities have very low numbers of such pupils in schools, and the plain fact is that small nurseries with small class sizes are not big enough to academise. Their size and nature mean that they cannot afford to procure central services themselves, so they are reliant on the local education authority. This ideological shambles of forced academisation has resulted in the Government having to leave these nurseries out on a limb. Councils will still have to retain core educational support services.
What comes next for these local authority nurseries? In the meantime, with an uncertain future, they are unable to plan. The Government have injected a huge degree of instability. The all-party parliamentary group on nursery schools and nursery classes reported last month that there is growing evidence that the maintained nursery schools in particular are at risk of closure.
We must remember the important difference between primary education and early years childcare. Early years childcare is a multi-agency environment. Many of these nurseries are already losing co-located services and income because of this Government’s policies. The outrageous cut of £685 million from Lancashire county council has resulted in one of my local authority nurseries, Fairfield, losing the presence and shared cost base of its neighbourhood centre, as the county council consolidates and contracts these services.
It is not just damaging cuts and forced academisation that threaten these LEA nurseries, because the Government’s shambolic unplanned provision for increases in free childcare has also created problems. The net result is chaos for the UK’s two, three and four-year-olds and their parents. According to the House of Commons Library, in Bristol alone, 23.2% of three and four-year-olds  attend LEA nurseries, while in my own county of Lancashire, 15.3% of three and four-year olds attend them. Let us not forget that parental choice is about choosing high-quality, state-provided nurseries. Local education provision is important to parents, who want fully qualified staff and support services. The reality today is that this Government have no answer to the forced academisation programme, and grant-maintained nurseries are going to suffer as a consequence.

James Cartlidge: I welcome the White Paper and the broad thrust of policy, which is about standards. If England were a school, it would not be “outstanding” and it would not be “good”, and that is not good enough. We owe it to our children to raise education standards across the board, especially in the most disadvantaged areas.
However, while I certainly see a role for academies in transforming schools that are failing, I have many reservations about the specific proposal for enforced academisation, and like many other Members, I have particular reservations in relation to rural primary schools. I recently visited All Saints Primary School in Lawshall, near Bury St Edmunds. Its excellent headmistress, Clare Lamb, is a national leader. The school is outstanding in every sense of the word, and it has told me that it does not want to become an academy. What I fundamentally struggle with—this is a very simple point—is the idea that I should go to that school and say, “Although your school is outstanding, and all your staff are working brilliantly and delivering a fantastic education, we are now going to force you to become an academy.”
I understand the reasoning behind this, and I understand the point about sustainability. The White Paper argues that as more and more schools become academies, it will become harder to sustain those that do not. However, it is forecast that only a third of primary schools will be academies by 2022; in other words, two thirds will not. There is an answer to the question of sustainability, which is fairer funding. I have written to all my local schools telling them I will campaign for fairer funding so that they can look forward to a better funded future. That has been our answer. We have never linked it to academies, and I was grateful to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for confirming that there was no direct link.
During Prime Minister’s Question Time, I asked the Prime Minister about the principles underlying consultation on fairer funding. In his answer, which I sent to all my local primary schools, he specifically stated that he would support small rural schools in sparsely populated areas, and made no mention of academisation.
I know that both the Secretary of State and the Prime Minister have a passion for education, but many of us have serious reservations about enforcement. We believe in choice, and we find it hard to defend the idea that we should force schools that are good or outstanding to become academies. A one nation education policy involves a national funding framework. A one nation education policy transforms the worst schools, making them become academies in the hope that that will improve them. However, I do not think that, at its heart, such a policy should mean forcing schools that are already good or outstanding to change their status, thus putting at risk the excellent standards that they are delivering.

Clive Lewis: May I begin by apologising to the Secretary of State? Owing to the reduced speaking time, I shall not be able to make my traditional pop at the Inspiration Trust. I am sure that there will be other opportunities in the future, but I wanted to put that on the record.
Like so many other Members on both sides of the House, and like so many parents and teachers up and down the country, I am baffled by the Government’s policy of forced academisation. Normally, when assessing a new initiative in any policy area, I consider three key questions: what does the consultation say and what are the views of the key stakeholders, what is the evidence for and against the policy, and how will new institutions created by it be held to account?
The answers to those questions are usually quite long and complex, and that is especially true of education, because it is a complex topic and there are many different views, often strongly held. However, in the case of the policy of forced academisation, the answers are not long and complex; they are brutally short and simple. Consultation: none. Evidence: none. Accountability: none. How are we to take this policy seriously? This is the most significant reorganisation of education policy in the United Kingdom since the second world war, and it was not even mentioned in the Conservative party manifesto, written less than a year ago. Was that the result of a deliberate choice to keep it secret from the electorate, or was it made up on the hoof at some point in the last 11 months? Whichever it was, one thing is certain: it has no mandate whatsoever from the public of this country. The White Paper that sets out this policy contains no evidence section to support the proposals it makes. It simply omits that, replacing it with a few cherry-picked, one-off examples that support the policy. Perhaps that omission has been made because the evidence simply does not exist. The fact is that this is just another lurch in an incoherent and unthought-out series of zig-zags on how our children are educated.
Perhaps it is on the question of accountability that this whole policy really shows up the hypocrisy of this Government. We have heard again and again in recent days about how keen they are on “transparency”. We have heard them many times talk about “choice” and “localism”. Yet again this Government say all the right things but do the exact opposite.
The White Paper in effect begins the process of accelerating the handover of the entire state education system to a series of semi-private bodies that are completely unaccountable to parents or the communities in which they reside. Why? Because parents, teachers and communities will no longer have the right to representation on boards of governors. Therefore, I urge the Conservative Members to have the honesty and integrity to put paid to this White Paper. If you do want it, put it in your next general election manifesto and take it to the people—let them decide their children’s future. See if they are as keen to have millions of pounds of public assets handed over to the private sector for next to nothing. No transparency. No choice. Another nail in the coffin of local democracy.

Suella Fernandes: Learning changes lives because it changes life chances and we all get only one chance at school. In 2010, Labour left this country  with one in three children unable to do basic maths or to read. That is a damning indictment of its 13 years of education policy. Therefore, it is incumbent on the Government to take steps to improve standards. How do we do that? We do it by changing structures. Structures beget better standards—Tony Blair said that. I am a passionate advocate of more freedoms for teachers and for schools. If we free up teachers from bureaucracy, box ticking and form filling, they will fly.
I helped to set up one of the first free schools, in Wembley in Brent, where we are seeing our teachers flourish and live out their passion for their subjects, free from bureaucracy and diktat. We are seeing our children’s discipline and behaviour turn around. Therefore, I speak in favour of the White Paper, which represents the next logical step in the reforms that are radically improving and changing the life chances of children in this country.
I particularly welcome two key points. The first is the reforms of Ofsted. For too long, we have seen Ofsted expand its role and have a debilitating and pernicious effect on teachers. It is cited as one of the key reasons for leaving the profession. It provides an unfair and distorted image of a school. It is inconsistent and incoherent. The Trojan horse schools were rated as outstanding by Ofsted. It is clear, then, that reform of its remit is needed. I welcome the announcements in the White Paper to reduce its role and interference in schools.
Secondly, on academisation, it is important that schools are free to choose how they are run. Hampshire, in which my constituency is located, is performing well. The authority has an opportunity here. It can take advantage of that to become a MAT. It can outsource its services. This is a great opportunity to reform standards and schools, to change structures and to improve standards by allowing more collaboration, whether in CPD, teacher training, leadership training or back-office sourcing.
I therefore welcome this White Paper to improve children’s life chances.

Jim McMahon: It has been a fairly polarised debate on academies and community schools and whether one is right and the other wrong. The education system is complex and because of that we should not allow the debate to be so polarised; it should be a meaningful and deep debate. However, a number of the points raised need to be challenged, not least the point that was made by Conservative Back-Bench Members that when Labour left office one in three children left primary school unable to read and write. That claim has been made before by Conservative Members. The UK Statistics Authority has challenged that and said that it is not true. We need to make sure that that is put right. More than that, there has been a recommendation that the official record should be changed to reflect the facts.
The Local Government Association’s meeting with the Secretary of State has been referred to. To hear the report from that meeting, anyone would believe that the LGA supported the Government’s proposals, but nothing could be further from the truth. So, to provide a bit of balance in the debate, let me tell the Secretary of State exactly what the LGA is saying. It has stated:
“The wholesale removal of democratically elected councils from all aspects of local education, to be replaced by unelected and remote civil servants, has rightly raised serious questions about local needs and accountability”.

Liz McInnes: My local council, Rochdale Council, has just passed a motion to say that it totally deplores the attempt to force academisation on our schools. It will not be the only council to do that. Would my hon. Friend like to comment on that?

Jim McMahon: Absolutely, but I shall just conclude the quote from the LGA, which went on to say that the Government’s proposals
“will further weaken vital local voices in our schools.”
There has been a debate about whether the point in the motion about the removal of parent governors is accurate, but I can tell the House that there are serious concerns about the intent of this Government when it comes to democracy and local accountability. When I wrote to the Secretary of State to ask whether the Department would intervene to prevent E-ACT academies from sacking their community governors and parent governors, she refused to intervene; she supported their right to do that. There will be schools up and down this country in which parents no longer have a right to sit at that table and make their voice heard. If that is not the Government’s intent, why did not the Secretary of State or the Minister intervene and say that when they had the opportunity to do so?
Local areas are stepping up, and I commend the education and skills commission in Oldham for the work that it did, supported by Baroness Estelle Morris. The three MPs representing Oldham wrote to the Secretary of State to ask for a meeting to discuss the outcome of that work, which was genuinely about creating a family of education in Oldham involving parents, schools, governors, teachers and the community right across the spectrum of free schools, academies and community schools, but we have not even had a response. How can MPs in their constituencies have any faith in a further centralised education system in which a Secretary of State has all the power when she clearly does not even have the time to respond to a letter?
Ultimately, this is a trust issue. I do not believe that the Government are really interested in community voices or in teachers’ voices. I actually do not believe that they are particularly interested in what happens to young people in Oldham. I am really questioning who they do listen to. I have very serious concerns about the academy sponsors and I want to know, as do the public, in whose interests this Government are working.

Huw Merriman: I am aware that there is a certain sense of irony, this being an education debate, that I am at the bottom of the pile again—probably the last person to speak from the Government side of the House—for speaking too much. However, Mr Speaker, thanks to your policy that all must have prizes, I shall get my two minutes, and I am delighted to have them. I am also conscious that, yet again, I am the kid who no one wants to sit with. [Hon. Members: “Aah!”] I am delighted to speak in the debate. I also made a speech on education in the Budget debate, along similar lines to the one that my hon. Friend the Member for Colchester (Will Quince) delivered.
I welcome the White Paper. I have found much in it that will make our schools better, which I endorse and celebrate. The point has been made that if a local  education authority school is outstanding, why should it be forced to become an academy? I should like to put a counter-proposition to that point. My constituency has five secondary schools, but only one has a sixth form. As a result, sixth form children have to be bussed out for miles. That is very much an LEA principle that has been put in place. One of my outstanding schools, which has not asked to become an academy, has asked to expand to include a sixth form but it has been unable to do so. Sometimes in order to encourage schools to use autonomy and to acquire their rights, we almost have to impose that will on them in order for them to take those powers. It is not just a question of whether the change is right for schools. There are parents who want their children to attend an outstanding sixth form in my constituency. If a school becomes an academy, there will be a sixth form and there will be more choice. Choice drives up standards, which is key for me as a constituency MP and a parent.
Having transformed a failing school, a headteacher in my constituency has now moved to another school at which the LEA may require some changes that she does not want. Such changes may help other schools, but there will be an impact on that headteacher, who moved to the new school to take it from good to outstanding. Would she have the right to run the school how she wanted were it an academy?
The White Paper shows the areas where teachers are a long way from their teacher training provider and Bexhill and Battle is at the bottom of pile, so any chance of reform that leads to better locations for teacher training is to be welcomed. While my contribution is about parts of the White Paper, many parts that have been ignored today will be welcome and will drive up standards.

Toby Perkins: Like many Opposition Members, I am proud of the record of the previous Labour Government and particularly proud of what we did on the academies programme. We went into many struggling schools that were finding it difficult to attract the right staff and made them attractive for new people, but I see nothing in the Government’s approach that builds on that. They are butchering the Labour Government’s record on academies, and they are wrong to claim that the changes are an extension of what the Labour Government did.
I am pleased to say that virtually all Opposition Members have recognised in today’s debate that there is a huge number of good academies, because we are not here to say that academies are a mistake. Chesterfield has several academies. Newbold Community School was taken over by Outwood Grange, which I have visited and in many ways is doing a good job, as are the many schools under local authority control. Our argument today is not anti-academy, but anti the Government’s dogmatic approach to forcing good schools that are working well under local authorities to become academies.
I take issue with the Government’s amendment where it states that
“it trusts school leaders to run schools and empowers them with the freedom to innovate”,
because many academies are parts of chains that operate in exactly the same way in many areas. Outwood Grange has 13 different schools, and the schools are run identically  in Scunthorpe, Worksop or Chesterfield. I put it to the organisation that that represents the “McDonaldisation” of education and it did not disagree and said that every one of its schools is exactly the same. The idea that headteachers have all the power in academies does not necessarily stand up to much scrutiny. The Government’s rigid approach to the national curriculum prevents local headteachers from innovating, so the Government’s record does not back up what they are saying.
It is clear from today’s debate that the Government do not have the support of their own Members, who are right to worry about the impact on small rural primary schools, because there is no way that academy chains will be interested in taking over such schools, which will close. I have no doubt that the policy will collapse, and it is massively disruptive for schools to have this hanging over them. By far the best thing that the Secretary of State could do is not to carry on clinging to a policy that we can all see has no chance of being delivered, but to announce at the Dispatch Box that she will rethink and get everyone concentrating on the key issues that face our schools, not this forced academisation.

Julie Cooper: As a teacher, parent and experienced school governor, I know that giving children access to an excellent education is the best start that we can give them in life, so it is a shame that the Government have not come to us with a serious plan to improve educational standards. The proposal before us is nothing more than a gimmick. There is no evidence whatsoever that academies consistently raise standards. The fact is that educational standards rise and children succeed when they experience excellent teaching, and the evidence shows that it matters not whether that takes place in a local authority or an academy. The Government are choosing to ignore the evidence and are riding roughshod over both public and professional opinion.
The proposed changes are not just unhelpful; they are downright damaging. Some 85% of all primary schools are already judged to be outstanding, so why are they now to be forced to become academies? What is this expensive top-down reconfiguration going to cost? School budgets face a real-terms cut for the first time since the mid-1990s, so why, when schools are facing such huge challenges, are we asking teachers to take time, money and effort away to implement a change that has no track record of success? If the Government come forward with a genuine plan to raise educational standards by ensuring that schools are properly resourced and teachers are properly supported, I will back it, but I will not be backing this irresponsible meddling.
In my constituency, 35 state-maintained schools stand to be affected, and hundreds of parents, governors and teachers have already written to me to oppose the Government’s proposals, which fly totally in the face of localism. Where is the democracy in this proposal? Where is the accountability? Why are parents to be excluded from the governance of their children’s schools? Why are the views of the professionals—the teachers—being ignored? I will stand up for the parents of Burnley and Padiham, I will stand up for teachers and governors, but above all I will be opposing the forced academisation of our schools, because I care passionately about the education of our children.

Rebecca Long-Bailey: Schools in Salford are under immense strain: there are chronic shortages of teachers; class sizes are rising; and the extra-curricular services, such as mentoring, which can often mean the difference between a child from a disadvantaged background succeeding or failing, are being scaled back. With all the Chancellor’s rhetoric about the northern powerhouse, now is the time to raise standards and to skill our region for the future, not to take money and effort away from education by undertaking an extremely costly and unnecessary programme to convert all schools into academies.
I am also concerned that the Government appear to be undertaking such a policy with no evidential basis to show that academies are more effective than maintained schools. Even the Local Government Association education chair, Roy Perry, has stated that
“only 15% of the largest academy chains perform above the national average”.
Furthermore, schools should be rooted in and accountable to their local communities, but the Government’s proposals create quite the opposite, taking schools away from local authority control and removing the express requirement to install parent governors. That is quite contradictory from a Government who only a few years ago championed localism.
Let me turn now to the treatment of land assets, which many describe as a land grab reminiscent of the dissolution of the monasteries. The new plans will see all school land transferred directly from local authorities to the Secretary of State, who will then grant a lease to the relevant academy. The Minister may recall that back in 2010 the primary care trust land was transferred to a property management company, NHS Property Services Ltd, with the sole shareholder being the Secretary of State for Health. I have questioned the necessity of creating such a company when the Secretary of State holds the land in any case, but it would of course make perfect sense if there was, say, a proposed sale of that property management company in the future—I say no more. I would be grateful if the Minister confirmed today whether such a property management company would be created for land held under the Government’s proposals.
As for the leases themselves, details do not appear to be available at the moment, so I would be grateful if the Minister could provide clarity. Most importantly, will an academy tenant be required to seek consent from the Secretary of State for any underlettings? Will there be any degree of local engagement to ensure that any tenants are deemed beneficial to the school and the wider community, rather than simply offering a financial gain for the academy?
On future land sales, I am very concerned about how this system will be managed by the Secretary of State, particularly in respect of who will derive benefit from any proceeds of sale. The current proposals are extremely ambiguous and do not clarify where proceeds will be directed, but I suggest that they go to the relevant local authority so that they can be put to good and beneficial local use.

Wes Streeting: I declare an interest as a councillor in the London borough of Redbridge, a borough that has a high level of retention of schools as  part of the local authority family, and also an excellent and constructive relationship with the free schools, academies, grammar schools and independent schools that make up the rich diversity of education in our borough.
This Government have got their priorities on education very badly wrong. When they should be focusing on school standards, they are focusing on structures, without any focus whatsoever on evidence. It has been striking that so few Government Members have stood up in support of the Government’s proposals. We have heard many excellent speeches against those proposals and against the outrageous attack on parent choice and voice. I will not single them out, because being called a red Tory is a cross that no one should have to bear.
The Secretary of State should have been at the Dispatch Box today talking about the first real-terms cut in school budgets since the 1990s. She should have been talking about how she is going to deal with the crisis in teacher recruitment and retention that is seeing many excellent teachers leave the profession because of the stress of their workload and also because of the offence caused by people in this place and in Whitehall continuing to tell professionals how to do their job.
Our job is to make sure that every child gets the best start in life, and to ensure that the accountability mechanisms are in place to assure ourselves that that is the case, and, if it is not, to intervene. What justification can there be for the fact that the majority of schools that will be affected by the policy are primary schools, more than 80% of which are already good or outstanding? Why are we focusing on excellence when we should be focusing on underperformance?
Why is the Secretary of State not taking advice from her own chief inspector of schools who, after an inspection of seven multi-academy trusts, highlighted serious weaknesses, sometimes the same as in the worst performing local authorities and often accompanied by the same excuses? Conversion to academies and placing schools in the hands of multi-academy trusts is not a panacea or a magic wand. We should follow the evidence when setting education policy.
That is my fundamental problem with the White Paper—it does not follow the evidence. There is no evidence that making a school an academy will somehow make it better. Yes, we need more freedom for schools and more trust in professionals. We need to follow the example that we saw under the Labour Government. Contrary to what the hon. Member for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) said, I am proud of what the Labour Government delivered on education. I am a product of it. I went to school in London when London schools were left to sink. Instead, we had the London Challenge, Excellence in Cities and a raft of measures that came through funding and also through focus on outstanding teaching and outstanding leadership. That is what the Secretary of State should be talking about today. Instead, she has a dogmatic, ridiculous White Paper that will not deliver what she says it will.

John Bercow: I call Rachael Maskell to speak until 6.44.

Rachael Maskell: Thank you for squeezing me in, Mr Speaker. I want to talk about the excellence that has been built in York’s education  system—a partnership between the local authority schools and the local authority itself. It is an excellence recognised by this Government—it is a top performing local authority across Yorkshire and Humber and has the top 14% of GCSE results in the city. The Government have recognised it to pilot its childcare strategy.
That excellence, which is threatened by this policy, has been built on the close partnership, the interdependence and collaboration between the local authority and local schools. It is those schools that are saying, “Leave me alone.” There is a strong relationship between parents and their school, and that partnership makes things work. Standards in education in York have been built up over decades. It is a fantastic story of triumph and it does not stop there. The York Challenge is modelled on the success of the London and Greater Manchester Challenges, to drive that excellence in partnerships between schools, the local education authority and parents.
One MAT has been created in York. The schools involved said that they had jumped before they were pushed because they were offered £100,000. It has fundamentally changed the relationship between the parents and the schools. It has also meant that the head did not have time to sign off the reports for the children, and that more teachers have moved into admin and headship roles, away from direct input in children’s education, leading to more irregular classroom cover. What I would say to the Secretary of State is, “Don’t break what doesn’t need fixing.”

Nicholas Dakin: Let me start by declaring an interest as a lifelong member of the National Union of Teachers and a former teacher and college principal—I am not sure whether or not it is a benefit in this debate to have led a high-performing educational institution. The has been an excellent debate, begun from the Back Benches by the Father of the House, my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman), who pointed out in a very able contribution that the Government are making a big mistake and asked them to think again.
My hon. Friends spelled out the need to think again. We heard contributions from my hon. Friends the Members for Coventry North West (Mr Robinson), for Brent Central (Dawn Butler), for Newcastle upon Tyne North (Catherine McKinnell), for Bradford West (Naz Shah), for Hyndburn (Graham Jones), for Norwich South (Clive Lewis), for Oldham West and Royton (Jim McMahon), for Chesterfield (Toby Perkins), for Burnley (Julie Cooper), for Salford and Eccles (Rebecca Long Bailey), for Ilford North (Wes Streeting) and for York Central (Rachael Maskell). We also heard extremely positive contributions from the hon. Members for Motherwell and Wishaw (Marion Fellows), for Southport (John Pugh), for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), for Gloucester (Richard Graham), for Solihull (Julian Knight) and for Portsmouth South (Mrs Drummond).
I would like to draw particular attention to the concerns expressed carefully, and quite properly, by Government Members. Concerns about removing choice and forcing academisation were expressed by the hon. Members for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton), for South Dorset (Richard Drax), for Beckenham (Bob Stewart) and for South Suffolk (James Cartlidge). The hon. Member for South Suffolk also expressed concern  about the independence of small primary schools, as did the hon. Members for Newbury (Richard Benyon), for Gainsborough (Sir Edward Leigh), for Telford (Lucy Allan) and for Solihull. The hon. Members for Winchester (Steve Brine), for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) and for Fareham (Suella Fernandes) asked why, if something is broken in Hampshire, can the schools not stick with the local authority? I think that the Secretary of State indicated that there might be a concession to allow local authorities to form a multi-academy trust. If that is the case, it should be welcomed.

Peter Dowd: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Nicholas Dakin: I am going to make some progress.
I thought that the hon. Member for Colchester (Will Quince) made a really excellent speech. He made it clear that there is no evidence that academies are always better and expressed the fear, which many of us genuinely feel, that this may prove to be an unnecessary shake-up. He was complimented on that argument by his colleague the hon. Member for Bexhill and Battle (Huw Merriman).
The big question that everybody is asking is: why? Why force every school to become an academy? Why remove the historic partnership between local communities and their schools by saying that schools can no longer choose to remain in local authority families? Why remove the right of parents to be elected by their peers to serve on their child’s school’s governing body, as is clearly proposed in paragraph 3.3 of the White Paper? I listened very carefully, but no credible answer has yet come forth, and there has been no evidence to support the huge upheaval that this forced academisation represents.
It is not as though those working in education do not have challenges to focus their energies on, such as teacher shortages, inadequate school place planning, managing the chaos of initiatives on exams and assessment being imposed on schools, or managing the first real-terms cuts in schools funding since the mid-1990s, with the need to make around £7.5 billion of savings. With limited resources, one might think that a Conservative Government would focus their energies on these very real issues.
I think that the Bow Group put it well:
“The proposed changes to schools follow a worrying trend in recent years to further centralise decisions away from local communities, which have more nuanced understanding of the issues they face daily. This adds to an ongoing ideological drift between the Party and conservative values.”
The leaders of the four largest groups on the Local Government Association are right to point out that 82% of local authority schools are good or outstanding, adding that there
“is no clear evidence that academies perform better than council maintained schools.”
That echoes the conclusion that the cross-party Education Committee came to after its in-depth inquiry into the matter. The National Association of Head Teachers is right to warn that
“the proposals present a particularly high risk to the future viability and identity of small, rural schools, nurseries and special schools.”
The professional associations are right to point out in their joint letter that a
“forcible transfer of 17,000 schools to academy status... will be a huge distraction from schools’ core functions of teaching and  learning… This is not what parents want from their schools, nor was this a proposal part of the manifesto that the current government put before the electorate.”
That is from the leaders of the Local Government Association’s leading groups. Evidence that they are right can be seen in the angry reaction of parents on Mumsnet to the suggestion that schools should be forced to become academies, whether or not that is needed or the school community and parents want it.
Her Majesty’s chief inspector has recently written to the Secretary of State to raise serious concerns about the performance of seven large multi-academy trusts:
“Given these worrying findings about the performance of disadvantaged pupils and the lack of leadership capacity and strategic oversight by trustees, salary levels for the chief executives of some of these MATs do not appear to be commensurate with the level of performance of their trusts or constituent academies. This poor use of public money is compounded by some trusts holding very large cash reserves that are not being spent on raising standards.”
It is no wonder 146,000 people have already signed a petition calling on the Government to stop going down this road.
“Schools Week” asked a pertinent question: what will forced academisation mean for pupils? It came up with a perceptive answer: “Almost nothing.” However, there will be an impact on children and parents. School leaders will have to put scarce energy and money into researching and managing academisation. An additional £1.3 billion will be spent on the process, which is money that could be directly spent on children in our schools. Time and money that should be spent tackling the real problems facing schools—managing cuts in funding, recruiting and maintaining the education workforce, and providing sufficient school places—will be spent on managing a process of structural change. However, it is worse than that. There is not the capacity in the system to support wholesale academisation. There are already insufficient potential sponsors to give schools that need or want to become academies a choice.
The regional schools directors charged with ensuring school improvement will be distracted from focusing on that as they marshal capacity for wholescale academisation —a capacity that might well include expanding already-failing academy chains, which was something the Secretary of State failed to rule out when pressed to do so by my right hon. Friend the Member for East Ham (Stephen Timms) in the Budget debate. We have a strategy that would deliver the ideological outcome of forced academisation but do nothing to improve outcomes for the UK’s children or UK plc.
I hope all right hon. and hon. Members who believe that such massive changes to our school system should go ahead only if the evidence is in place to support them will vote for the motion on the Order Paper if they are not convinced that the time, money and energy that will be spent on forced academisation will improve outcomes for children, families and communities.

Nick Gibb: This has been an excellent debate, with a large number of superb speeches. I apologise if, in the time available, I am not able to respond to them all.
The Government’s education policy is focused on raising academic standards in our schools. Many Governments promise to raise standards; this Government are raising standards. We are raising standards in children’s reading, with 120,000 more six-year-olds this year reading more effectively as a result of our focus on phonics. We are raising standards in maths, with a new primary maths curriculum that is raising expectations and bringing us closer to the expectations in the top-performing education systems of the world. We are raising standards so that pupils leave primary school fluent in arithmetic. The plan is for all pupils to know their times tables by heart, which is why we are introducing a multiplication tables test at the end of primary school. Our policy is resulting in children starting secondary school having learned the rules of grammar and punctuation for the first time in a generation. The Government have eradicated grade inflation in our public exams—the GCSE and the A-level—which are being reformed so that they are on a par with the best qualifications in the world.
What the Government are doing in education is real; that is why it is controversial. It started under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Member for Surrey Heath (Michael Gove), and it is now entering a bold new phase under the leadership of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State.
If real education reform were easy, it would have been done already. However, every step of the way, we have had to fight and take on the vested interests—the self-appointed experts, the professors of education in the universities and the education quangos. We have challenged local authorities where too many schools were languishing in the performance tables year after year. We have transformed many of their schools into academies with a strong sponsor driving up standards—1,300 schools so far since 2010. We have taken powers in the Education and Adoption Act 2016 to automatically turn into an academy every school that Ofsted has put into special measures and to do the same for every coasting school that is not up to the job of raising its game.
Those schools will be supported by outstanding schools that are leading multi-academy trusts, which are formal groupings of academies spreading what works in the best schools to improve pupil behaviour, raise academic standards, promote sport and the arts, and share back-office functions. That means that small schools are more likely to be financially viable. There are now more than 640 multi-academy trusts led by outstanding schools.
Many strong and effective local authorities have seen the educational benefit of giving professionals control of their schools and have encouraged their good and outstanding schools to become academies and spread their winning formula and expertise. For example, in Bournemouth, 87% of all local authority schools, including primary schools, are now academies, as are 83% of schools in Bromley. Nationally, 66% of secondary schools and 19% of primary schools are now academies.
In 2010, there were just 203 academies; now, there are more than 5,600. The direction of travel is clear. Every month, more and more schools are converting to academy status. At some point, we have to draw the line, and that is why the White Paper sets out what we need to do over the next six years as more local authorities reach the levels of academisation in Bournemouth, Bromley and elsewhere.
Local authorities will continue to have an important role to play as the champions of parents and pupils—[Interruption.]

Eleanor Laing: Order. Many people asked questions of the Minister. They want to hear his answers. We must listen to the debate.

Nick Gibb: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. As I was saying, local authorities have a role to play as the champions of parents and pupils with regard to place planning, administering admissions and ensuring that children with special educational needs are properly supported in their education.
May I apologise to the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) for the occasional split infinitive in the White Paper? There were many more split infinitives in the earlier drafts. The Secretary of State and I have done our best to eradicate jargon, and we will redouble our efforts to do so.
Despite those split infinitives, my hon. Friend the Member for Romsey and Southampton North (Caroline Nokes) read an excerpt from a letter from a headteacher in her constituency, stating that it is the best White Paper he has ever read. She was right to point out that, in her experience, there is enormous community involvement in the academies in her constituency. We are putting greater expectations on academies to involve parents and to take their views into account.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael), who chairs the Education Committee, made the important point in his excellent contribution that, of course, the academies programme started under Labour—but that was new Labour, not old Labour—and this Government have turbo-charged that programme.
This has been a lively debate about an issue that could not be more important to our country: the education of the next generation. This Government have a clear plan for education reform and it is already raising standards in our schools. By contrast, we hear nothing from Labour about standards, improving the teaching of reading, instilling a love of books, attainment in mathematics, improving our GCSE and A-level exams or improving pupil behaviour in our schools. For Labour, it is all about politics—it is all about cosying up to the vested interests and the NUT.
Our White Paper is an ambitious plan to ensure that our school leavers, wherever they live and whatever their background, are properly educated and equipped for life in modern Britain. It is clear from today’s debate that the Labour party has learned nothing from its defeat. It has no credibility on the economy, no ambition and no plan to raise standards in our schools, and at the first whiff of controversy it runs to attach itself to the vested interests.
The public want a Government who take difficult decisions and who act not in party interests, but in the national interest. I urge the House to reject Labour’s self-serving motion and to support our amendment—

Alan Campbell: claimed to move the closure (Standing Order No. 36).
Question put forthwith, That the Question be now put.
Question agreed to.
Question put accordingly, That the amendment be made.
The House divided:
Ayes 302, Noes 204.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Main Question, as amended, put.
The House divided:
Ayes 297, Noes 201.

Question accordingly agreed to.
Resolved,
That this House believes that every child deserves an excellent education; welcomes the transformation in England’s schools since 2010 where 1.4 million more children are now taught in good or outstanding schools; notes that the academies programme has been at the heart of that transformation because it trusts school leaders to run schools and empowers them with the freedom to innovate and drive up standards; further notes that there remain too many areas of underperformance and that more needs to be done to ensure that standards in England match those of its best international competitors; and therefore welcomes the Government’s proposals in its White Paper to further improve teacher quality, ensure funding is fairly distributed, tackle areas of chronic educational failure and devolve more power to heads and school leaders to ensure both they and parents have more of a voice in the running of their schools; and welcomes the commitment to achieve educational excellence everywhere.

BUSINESS WITHOUT DEBATE

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Motion made, and Question put forthwith (Standing Order No. 118(6)),

Insurance

That the draft Third Parties (Rights against Insurers) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 25 February, be approved.—(Margot James.)
Question agreed to.

INDEPENDENT PARLIAMENTARY STANDARDS AUTHORITY

Ordered,
That the Motion in the name of Chris Grayling relating to the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority shall be treated as if it related to an instrument subject to the provisions of  Standing Order No. 118 (Delegated Legislation Committees) in respect of which notice has been given that the instrument be approved.—(Margot James.)

PETITION - POST OFFICE CLOSURES IN LONG LAWFORD AND BULKINGTON

Mark Pawsey: I rise to present a petition relating to post office closures in Long Lawford and Bulkington, led by John Beaumont in Bulkington and Peter McLaren in Long Lawford, and signed by 1,551 individuals who request that the post offices remain open and that jobs are protected. The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Post Office and the Co-operative Society to reconsider the planned closure of post offices in Long Lawford and Bulkington.
The petition states:
The petition of residents of the UK,
Declares that the post office facilities in Long Lawford and Bulkington, run by the Post Office and the Co-operative Society, should not be closed; further that the closures would result in redundancies of current post office staff; and further that local petitions on this matter have been signed by 1551 individuals.
The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urges the Government to encourage the Post Office and the Co-operative Society to reconsider the planned closure of post offices in Long Lawford and Bulkington.
And the Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray.
[P001683]

Economic Value of Golf

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—(Margot James.)

Karl McCartney: Two weeks ago, I was particularly pleased to have secured this Adjournment debate in the wake of the launch, hosted by the all-party group on golf, of which I am chairman, of a report by Professor Shibli at Sheffield Hallam University on the benefits to the UK economy of golf. The report was instigated and funded by the Royal and Ancient, the home of golf.
As my right hon. Friend the Minister is aware, and as maybe you are Madam Deputy Speaker, many facets of life depend on impeccable…timing. Indeed, all the sports that I regularly play, many representing parliamentary teams, rely on good co-ordination and timing. The report’s launch and this Adjournment debate coincides with last weekend’s exciting golf, where Danny Willett won the US Masters. Six of the top 15 players at the tournament were British. Perhaps they were told last weekend about the importance of this upcoming Adjournment debate and my starring role—although I think other factors may have provided any extra incentive they might have needed.
Our great sporting nation invented or codified practically every global sport—an amazing achievement. Golf is no different. Among the constant clatter and chatter of football, the hurly burly of rugby union or league and the more measured poise of cricket, golf stands out as a sport that can be played and enjoyed by all in our society. Indeed, there are about 3,000 golf clubs across the United Kingdom. No player can rely on his or her team mates, the decisions of a referee, or the noise from the home crowd. It is one man or woman against one course—that is all. Two foes fighting each other for control: the ultimate battle both physical and mental. I was recently informed that some view golf as a game played across a distance not of a course or a fairway, but of the five-and-a-half inches between the ears. It can be a sport as frustrating and rewarding as one wants it to be.
Among all the preamble, I mentioned the report that I was proud to help launch. The report, “A Satellite Account for Golf in the UK”, shows explicitly the value, in a monetary sense, of golf to the UK economy. This debate will enable the House to recognise and celebrate golf’s contribution on myriad levels, including economically and to the health of participants.
At this point, I would like to congratulate Martin Slumbers and all at the Royal and Ancient who supported the report, and Professor Shibli of Sheffield Hallam University Sport Industry Research Centre who produced it—the first of its kind for an individual sport in the UK.

Stephen Gethins: I would like to congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing this important debate, and to acknowledge his work as part of the all-party group on golf. He raises an important point about economic value. Does he agree with me that there is a particular value to small business, as I well know round about St Andrews and elsewhere in North East Fife? He is also right to acknowledge the health benefits for people of all ages of taking part in golf.

Karl McCartney: I thank my colleague and fellow all-party group chairman for his welcome intervention.
I am aware that the Government have set five priorities in their “Sporting Future” strategy, one of which is economic development. When the results of the widely available report I referred to were published last month, it was clear that golf makes a vast contribution to our economy, much of which has been unheralded and unsung thus far. I trust this debate will go some way towards promulgating the good news.
The economic value is clear: with nearly 4 million people playing golf once a year and 1.5 million people playing golf every four weeks—a number even larger than those employed in the national health service—the total economic activity of golf exceeds a staggering £10 billion per annum.

Michael Tomlinson: I am glad that my hon. Friend has secured this debate. Although I cannot challenge St Andrews, Dorset has many fine golf courses. In terms of economic benefit, golf provides useful employment, especially for younger people living in a rural area. Does he agree that that is vital in our more rural areas?

Karl McCartney: Indeed it is, and I thank my hon. Friend for making the case for Dorset, as one of the many parts of the nation, both urban and rural, where golf is important. I shall come on to some of the statistics later in my speech.
Overall, golf’s positive contribution to the British economy is over £2 billion per annum, not just directly through golf clubs and through our vibrant golf equipment industry and golf shops, but indirectly through the construction and real estate industries.
I am particularly pleased that England Golf is the home of the amateur game in this country. It is based in my county of Lincolnshire in Woodhall Spa in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Louth and Horncastle (Victoria Atkins), so the game’s contribution is well spread across our nation. I doubt that even colleagues who want us to remain in the European Union could come up with a scare story about the damage that leaving might hypothetically do to this great game of ours—the Ryder cup is surely safe, no matter what happens on 23 June.

Jason McCartney: I congratulate my hon. Friend and namesake on securing this debate. I have a family interest in that my dad and constituent Bob is a keen player at Meltham golf club in my constituency. In talking about the economic benefits, will my hon. Friend also acknowledge those in the clothing and equipment supply chains? Glenbrae Leisure in Slaithwaite, for example, makes lots of jumpers and leisure wear, and the cloth in the green jacket that Danny Willett wore in Augusta at the masters was woven and dyed in my constituency on the outskirts of Huddersfield.

Karl McCartney: I thank my good friend, distant relative and fellow all-party group officer for his interjection. He never fails to take the opportunity to make a good point in this Chamber.
The final piece of the economic jigsaw is the number of people who work in golf, with an estimated 75,000 people directly employed in the UK—the equivalent of  54,000 full time workers from Land’s End to John O’Groats. When the sport is on the world stage, as it will be at the Royal Troon for the British open in July of this year, the economic benefits for the local economy stretch far and wide. Even our friends from the north in Scotland must concede that the English have assisted in the promotion and healthy aspect of their tourism industry, where golf is concerned.

Philippa Whitford: As the Member who represents Royal Troon, in my maiden speech I paid tribute to it and welcomed people to come and attend the open in July. As I said, my house is not quite big enough, but my garden is quite big if people want to bring a tent. Anyone wanting advice on eateries, travel or anything else about Royal Troon is welcome to speak to me.

Karl McCartney: That is very kind of the hon. Lady. I am happy to have been able to tee that up, so that she could drive that intervention down the fairway! Sorry, everybody; I must stop it.
Of course, golf is not just about jobs and money, vital as these are. Golf is the fifth largest sport in the UK in terms of participation, and the health benefits are clear for so many who take part in it. If everyone played a round every week, perhaps the obesity problem we face in our country would soon be eradicated. No one can play golf without indulging in physical exertion. Indeed, the game has been described by some as a good walk interspersed with some elation and frustration, often in unequal measure. Golf is a sport that supports our Government’s aim of ensuring that the nation’s population are active. On average, a game of 18 holes involves walking about six miles, although I personally would disagree with that figure. Given my playing standard, I often find myself walking perhaps double that distance as I search for my balls in the rough off the fairway—often on both sides—and dig them out of bunkers. Some have remarked that I am lucky to have a soft touch in my short game.
More seriously, golf is a sport that supports participation by men and women across all age groups. It is not subject to the decline in participation in some sports, such as team sports, by people who have reached their early twenties. Golf participation rates tend to increase until people are in their thirties and remain steady until they retire. It is, indeed, a game for all.

Andrew Stephenson: My hon. Friend is making some excellent points. Does he agree that municipal golf courses are particularly important? Is it not disgraceful that my local council, Pendle borough council, is proposing to close the only municipal golf course in Pendle in order to save £50,000 a year? The same council, in the same month, spent £300,000 on the purchase of a disused building in another part of the borough, so it clearly has a lot of money and does not need to make that saving. It simply does not recognise the importance of golf to people in all age groups. This is a real sport in which everyone can get involved, and the borough should save our local golf course.

Karl McCartney: I thank my good friend and fellow traveller for his intervention, but unfortunately that is not the only example in the country. In my home area,  Wirral council, which is also Labour-controlled, will get rid of the municipal golf course if it has its way, and in Lewisham, one of the oldest courses—perhaps even the oldest—is also under threat.

Philippa Whitford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Karl McCartney: Very quickly, if that is OK.

Philippa Whitford: In Troon, we are lucky enough to have 12,000 souls and nine golf courses, three of which are municipal. The hon. Gentleman spoke of people playing until retirement. In fact, golf is one of the few sports in which people can engage in their eighties and nineties. Our ladies’ club certainly includes players who are well into their nineties. Such courses should not be got rid of.

Karl McCartney: I shall come on to some of the other options for people who want to play golf in their retirement.
All that shows why golf adds such value to our economy, to employment, to our environment, and to our public health. I felt that it was important to secure this debate because I wanted to ensure that golf received the recognition that it deserves, and also to build on the recent re-formation of the new all-party parliamentary group for golf—an important new step. For far too long, golf has only been recognised in both Houses by the Parliamentary Golf Society, an august and traditional body whose role, it seems to some, has been to help traditional parliamentarians to play 19 holes together rather than celebrating the positive impact of the game throughout the nation. Some of us who came up against that closed shop in the last Parliament decided to reinvigorate the APPG with the simple aim of promoting participation in golf across the ages and sexes. Our European neighbours see ladies’ and girls’ participation rates that are double ours in the UK, and we want to close that gap. Golf can be, and is, a game to be enjoyed by all the family.
The first priority of the APPG is participation, but hand in hand with that goes an aim that is just as important—the aim to change the perception of golf. This great sport is for all ages, and we want to encourage young girls and boys to try it, whatever their background and wherever they live, and to continue to play throughout their lives with their friends and families. Who knows? It may not be a further 20 years before we see another British winner of the US Masters.
Some great work has been done by England Golf and its new chief executive, Nick Pink, by the Golf Trust and by others. All four home unions have specific projects in inner city areas, including the national Get Into Golf campaign and help for those with disabilities to take part in the sport. In the neighbouring constituency of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Stephen Phillips), Lincoln Golf Centre recently launched a project to help people with dementia to play and continue to play golf, which is happily hosted by Brian Logan and supported by Anthony Blackburn, founder of Golf In Society. Before Easter I was invited to meet players and their families, friends and carers, some of whom enjoyed a morning of respite while their husbands, wives, friends or partners enjoyed some golf.
The end of April marks the start of national golf month, which I am sure the whole House will support. On Wednesday 27 April there will be an event on Speaker’s Green to promote participation in golf. My right hon. Friend the Minister has been invited, and I am sure that you, Madam Deputy Speaker—as a member of the all-party parliamentary group—and all my colleagues throughout the House would enjoy taking part.
The conclusion of the report demonstrates that golf is of considerable importance to the economic contribution of sport within the UK economy.

Richard Arkless: I am interested in investment in golf tourism, and the results of that and of direct spending in constituencies. In my constituency, we have 30 courses. A £10,000 investment by Visit Scotland and the local council has led to almost £500,000 of indirect and direct revenues. Should we not be using this debate—I am sure the hon. Gentleman will agree—to put pressure on tourist boards and local authorities to put more money into attracting golf visitors to the UK, because the bang for our buck there is clearly higher than it would be elsewhere?

Karl McCartney: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with virtually all the points he made. The many disparate and far-reaching organisations within golf need to work with those outside the sport to ensure that it achieves the participation level that it should, at various levels.
The conclusion of the report demonstrates that golf is of considerable importance to the economic contribution of sport in the UK economy. At the heart of the industry is a thriving club sector. However, the sport’s presence in tourism, hospitality, construction, equipment, clothing, betting and events are all notable areas of golf’s economic impact, as is its contribution to taxation.
The report provides a replicable economic baseline for the golf industry, against which the future development of the sport can be measured. With golf making its return to the Olympic Games at Rio later this year and the economy on an upward growth path, the economic and sporting conditions are favourable for the UK golf industry to develop further. So I am looking forward to hearing the response from my right hon. Friend the Minister, including his acceptance, I hope, of my invitation to him for a round of golf this summer at either Bexleyheath or Barnehurst golf clubs in his constituency, which have obviously noted his renowned sporting prowess.
I thank the House for its attention.

David Evennett: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln (Karl McCartney) on securing the debate and on his constructive and interesting speech. I commend all those who have made interventions highlighting the golf courses in their constituency, and my hon. Friend the Member for Colne Valley (Jason McCartney) for giving us some history about the jacket and the tweed involved. It is also good to see my hon. Friend the Member for South Derbyshire (Heather Wheeler) in her seat. Before the debate, she highlighted the fact that I should mention the apprenticeships in her area and the green keepers and professionals in her golf clubs. We have had an interesting tour around the country and its golf courses.
It is particularly timely that we consider the matter in the wake of a hugely successful Masters tournament for British golfers. I add my congratulations to Danny Willett, whose fantastic performance led him to his first Green Jacket—the first for a British golfer in 20 years. I also congratulate Lee Westwood, Paul Casey, Matthew Fitzpatrick and Justin Rose on finishing in the top 10 —quite an achievement and what a result for our country.
I praise my hon. Friend the Member for Lincoln for spearheading the recently formed all-party parliamentary group on golf. Its existence at Westminster is long overdue and I am sure the group will provide a strong voice for the sport in Parliament. The calling of this debate already shows that that voice is being heard, and we commend him. The new APPG is good news indeed for the sport. I wish it all success.
I agree with my hon. Friend that as MPs we should take an interest in the sport, whether we have golf courses in our constituencies, or we have people who are very interested in the sport and play elsewhere. Perhaps some people watch it just when there is an international competition. I thank him for his kind invitation to attend the APPG’s first parliamentary reception in June. It is in the diary and I very much hope to be able to attend.
I should like to highlight the importance of golf to our nation’s economy as well as to the health and wellbeing of all our citizens who participate. Today we have heard in particular about the economic value of golf. Indeed, Sheffield Hallam University’s very helpful report has outlined how important the golfing sector is to our economy, and I commend its publication, which has stimulated considerable debate and interest. Its publication is timely as the Government’s new strategy for sport cites economic development through sport as one of five high-level outcomes. It is important in our strategy for sport to ensure that more people participate at every age. We have heard that people can continue to play golf to a considerable age and that is commendable. We know from the report that the golf market is significant to the health of our economy, accounting for 14% of all consumer spending on sport and employing more than 74,000 people in the UK golf industry. Golfers spent £4.3 billion on their sport in 2014, and golf paid almost £1 billion in tax in that period. That is a really significant contribution to the nation’s coffers.
Britain’s historic association with the game reaps many economic benefits from overseas visitors, as has been mentioned. Many flock to our shores to see the world’s best compete in the Open championship each year, while others come to play throughout the year on our world-famous courses, some of which have been highlighted this evening. Following the success of the 2014 Ryder cup at Gleneagles, the 2019 Solheim cup will also be played there, further cementing Scotland’s reputation as the home of golf. This will also generate further economic benefit for the country, and broadcast and media coverage will highlight Scotland’s natural beauty to the watching world. Speaking also as the Minister with responsibility for tourism, I welcome that opportunity.
I totally agree with my hon. Friend that to stimulate the economic benefits further, we need to increase the number of people playing the sport. Golf is already a  highly popular sport, with the latest Sport England survey showing that it is the fifth most played sport in England. It can be enjoyed by people of all ages, and participation has increased in the last year or so, which is welcome news. However, we must do all we can to increase participation further in golf, and in sport as a whole, for many reasons, not just the economic ones that we have already mentioned.
Sport England is investing £13 million in the current spending period on increasing participation through the England Golf Partnership, which is running a national campaign called “Get into Golf” to inspire people of all ages, backgrounds and abilities to try the sport and to enjoy it. The campaign offers low-cost golf taster sessions and a range of courses for beginners and improvers. I have to tell my hon. Friend that I fear I would be an improver. I am pleased to say that more than 18,000 people took part in those sessions between April 2015 and September 2015, helping to take the sport to new participants.
In July 2014, England Golf also launched its new strategic plan, “Raising our Game”, built around the key priorities of more players, stronger clubs, developing talent and putting on outstanding championships, thereby improving the image of the game and ensuring excellent governance. As part of the plan, a new club information pack has been produced to help clubs to market themselves better and bring new people to the game. England Golf has also worked with 50 targeted clubs on demand-led marketing workshops to help clubs to grow, and it has developed a two-year pilot programme in Northamptonshire, Staffordshire and Warwickshire to get more people playing the game in those areas.
A new programme is also working with 100 clubs to increase the number of women golfers. Much is being done to improve the health of the sport, although we should always look to do more. I welcome the Royal and Ancient’s decision last year to allow female members into the club. That has been a really long time coming, but I believe the decision will help the sport to move towards more balanced representation in the governance of the game. It will also be a positive step towards quashing the barriers within the sport. For golf to grow, it is vital that it demonstrates that it is an inclusive sport, open to all people of whatever background, age, race or gender. It is for everyone and, as we have heard this evening, people can participate at all levels.
It is important that we show that we are keen on the sport, and the inclusion of men’s and women’s golf at this summer’s Olympic games in Rio will give golf a unique opportunity to access a global audience, encourage fresh blood into the game and increase economic growth for the sport sector. I was interested to learn that this will be the first time that golf has returned to the Olympics for 112 years, having last been played at the games in 1904, with men’s and women’s tournaments taking place. Golfing authorities believe that the sport’s visibility will be greatly elevated by its inclusion in the Olympics, leading to greater participation. It was also announced earlier this month that gold medal winning golfers at the 2016 Olympics will win exemptions to next year’s majors. The men’s winner this summer will win entry to the Masters, the US Open, the Open, and the PGA Championship, which is really good news. The winning woman will also be given exemptions to the 2016 Evian Championship, the ANA Inspiration,  the Women’s PGA Championship, the U.S. Women’s Open and the Women’s British Open. All of that will have a positive, enhancing effect on the game.
Sport England has worked with the England Golf Partnership to achieve a much clearer understanding of the market and to tackle some of the barriers that get in the way of more people playing golf: time, cost, and accessibility. The APPG’s launch of national golf month at the Palace of Westminster on 27 April is a welcome boost, putting the spotlight on the sport and promoting the importance of golf to the UK’s health and economy. We must also never forget the most important thing: golf is fun. Part of the Government strategy on sport is about getting more people involved in sport for health, social and recreational reasons, but also because it is fun. In addition to all those other things, sport can be fun. It is fun even when we lose, because participation is about enjoyment. In today’s society, getting people going and doing things is fun in itself.
As I have mentioned, the economic impact of golf is important, but a 2009 study—it is a little out of date—of 300,000 Scandinavian golfers also estimated that those who play the game lived five years longer than non-players, regardless of age, gender or socioeconomic status.

Michael Tomlinson: Or ability.

David Evennett: Absolutely.
A further study found that walking 18 holes equates to moderate-to-high intensity exercise for older people and moderate exercise for the middle-aged—and that is   without the added bonus of playing the game. It is good news all round. Golf suits participants of all ages. It is good for communities and for jobs and presents an opportunity for people to do something different. I encourage as many people as possible to participate and to look to golf as an option for their entertainment, enjoyment and sport.
In conclusion, I am delighted to highlight the valuable contribution that golf makes to this country, enriching the lives and wellbeing of those who participate and work in the sector, and contributing to the economic health of the nation. Tonight’s debate has been a welcome addition to the promotion of golf, encouraging participation and highlighting the work being done by so many excellent groups and organisations. Sport matters. It matters to this Government, to this House and to this country. Golf can play an important part in the Government’s new sports strategy, which aims to encourage a more active and participatory nation. I again thank my hon. Friend for securing this debate today and thank those who have intervened and participated, because we want to get more people enjoying golf and working in the industry. I believe that that is the way to a successful sport. We want to see more great British stars winning on the international stage.
Question put and agreed to.
House adjourned.

Deferred Division

Employment Agencies, Etc.

That the draft Conduct of Employment Agencies and Employment Businesses (Amendment) Regulations 2016, which were laid before this House on 25 February, be approved.
The House divided:
Ayes 307, Noes 241.

Question accordingly agreed to.